Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Somersham Rectory Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Church House (Westminster) Bill,

South Metropolitan Gas (No. 2) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Taunton Corporation Bill (By Order,)

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 16th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST PROVINCE (SUBVENTION).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the amount of the subsidy annually paid by the Government of India to the North-West Frontier Province; and how long is it estimated that this payment will be necessary?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The amount is one crore of rupees (£750,000) a year. Owing to the geographical position of the province, its budget has to cover quasi-military expenditure of a kind from which the other provinces are exempt. In these special circumstances, it is likely that the subvention will be required for an indefinite period.

BURMA (TRADE RELATIONS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give an assurance that in any negotiations regarding the future government of Burma he will make certain that no other country obtains more favourable terms
for their imports into that country than this country for all goods, including cotton textiles?

Major PROCTER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the importance of the Burmese market for the Lancashire cotton industry, he will give an undertaking that Burma will not be subjected to the Indian fiscal policy, but will be left to make mutual preferential arrangements with Great Britain?

Sir S. HOARE: Both questions assume that Burma will be separated from India; but that is a matter which awaits the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and the decision of Parliament. I anticipate that if the decision is for separation Parliament would find it necessary to arrange that it entails no sudden and serious dislocation of the close trade connection with India on which Burma's prosperity at present largely depends, but to do so with the least possible limitation of Burma's freedom to establish her trade relations with other countries upon a basis consistent with the interests of Burma herself rather than with those of India as at present.

GOATSKINS (EXPORT DUTY).

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India if, in view of the fact that the Indian Government proposes to abolish the 5 per cent. export duty on raw cowhides, he will make representations to the Indian Government to abolish the export duty of 5 per cent. on raw goatskins exported to various parts of the Empire, and particularly to this country, which is rapidly increasing the consumption of these skins, in order to encourage British tanners, who are now the second largest consumers in the world of Indian goatskins?

Sir S. HOARE: I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Government of India.

Mr. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of this export duty will considerably assist British trade?

Sir S. HOARE: I will bring my hon. Friend's supplementary question also to the notice of the Government of India.

INDIAN ARMY.

Major-General SIR ALFRED KNOX: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will call for a report from the Government of India regarding the progress of Indianisation in the Indian Army, and publish the opinions of competent officers regarding the fighting value of the new units?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. The time has not come for judging the success or failure of the experiment. In any case, it would be contrary to every precedent to publish reports on the fighting value of individual units.

Sir A. KNOX: Surely several years have passed since this process of Indianisation was commenced; and is it not necessary, as the process involves the axing of a large number of British officers, to ascertain whether it is on the right lines or not?

Sir S. HOARE: I should not agree that the process calls for the axing of a large number of British officers. I should say that obviously the experiment has not yet sufficiently advanced for a conclusion to be drawn from it, when it is remembered that no Indian officer, as far as I am aware, has yet reached the rank of a company commander or a squadron commander.

Sir A. KNOX: What is the opinion of British commanding officers as to the possibility of the scheme being a success? Can we know that?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already said that it is generally held in military and civil circles that the experiment has not reached a point at which one can draw a conclusion.

SlND.

Sir A. KNOX: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the question of the separation of Sind will be considered and finally decided by Parliament?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the Hindu minority to be absolutely sacrificed without Parliament giving any opinion on the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. The answer is really: Yes, Sir.

GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (CONDUCT RULES).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 8 and 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) the procedure for hearing and deciding charges brought against Government servants under the recent Order; whether such servants are to be given adequate facilities for defence without prejudice to their retention of employment; and whether he will state the penalties to be applied against persons who may be convicted of taking an active interest in and aiding a political party or having permitted or failed to report upon the political activities of any member or servant of their household;
(2) whether he will publish, as a White Paper, the notice issued by the Government of India amending the Government Servants Conduct Rules so as to deprive all Government servants of all political rights and of participation in the public affairs of India?

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether servants of the Government of India are by regulation being held responsible for the political behaviour of their relatives; and whether, by the recent regulation, it is regarded as misconduct on the part of a Government servant if he fails to report the political activities of his relatives?

Sir S. HOARE: I am placing a copy of the Rules and the Amendment in the Library of the House. The Rule in question, before its Amendment, prohibited Government servants from taking part in any political movement in India or relating to Indian affairs. The effect of the Amendment is twofold. In the first place, it defines the meaning of the expression "political movement." Secondly, it makes Government servants responsible for preventing or bringing to notice cases in which persons dependent on them, not necessarily their relatives, may be participating in subversive movements such as, for example, terrorist activities. As regards penalties, the question of their imposition and nature would necessarily depend on the circumstances of each particular case. Disciplinary measures under the Rule as amended will be subject to the usual provision that no member of a Service may be dismissed or reduced without being afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper will be available?

Sir S. HOARE: I am placing a copy of the rules in the Library of the House. I think they are already there.

WIRELESS MESSAGES (CHARGES).

Mr. NORTH (for Mr. LYONS): 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by the fact that all wireless messages sent from India to England have to be paid for on a gold franc basis, he will direct that all inter-Imperial wireless messages transmitted from India to this country by the Imperial and International Communications, Limited, shall in future be assessed and paid for on a basis of sterling or the currency of origin?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Although the rates charged for wireless messages sent from India to England are based on the gold franc in accordance with the international practice laid down in the International Telecommunication Convention and the Regulations attached thereto, to which India is a party, the charges to the public are fixed in rupees.

ITALY, AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (PROTOCOLS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the proposal contained in the Rome protocol for bringing into closer relation the Danubian states?

Mr. MABANE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give the House any further information regarding the pact recently agreed in Rome between the Italian, Austrian and Hungarian Governments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have received the texts of the three protocols signed at Rome of which a full summary has been published in the Press. No statement by His Majesty's Government appears to be called for at the present stage.

REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL STATUS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has signed, or is proposing to sign, the League of Nations Convention relating to the international status of refugees?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government have not signed the Convention of the 28th October, 1933, relating to the international status of refugees, but the question whether they should accede to that instrument is at present under consideration.

SIAM (ISTHMUS OF KRA).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reports have been received from His Majesty's representatives in Siam or the Federated Malay States as to the proposal to construct a ship canal across the Isthmus of Kra; and what is the attitude of the Government towards this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to a rumour which has appeared in the Press regarding a scheme of this kind. Such rumours have been in circulation on various occasions in the past. There is no reason to suppose that this rumour is better founded than its predecessors, but I am making inquiries in the matter. No recent reports on this topic have been received from His Majesty's representatives in Siam or the Federated Malay States. The bearing of any such project on British interests would naturally receive the attention of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LEVANT FAIR.

Mr. JANNER: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the latest available information as to official participation by foreign countries in the enlarged Levant Fair at Tel Aviv which is to be opened next month; what is the approximate amount of money being spent and space taken by each of these countries; and how this will compare with the expenditure and space taken by Great Britain?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): According to the most recent information supplied by the fair authorities, the following countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, will be participating officially at the fair: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Japan, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. There is reason to think that participation, official or otherwise, is also contemplated by Czechoslovakia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Lithuania, Norway, Rumania and Yugoslavia. Very few details are given by the fair authorities as to the extent of these participations or as to the funds to be expended thereon, but, as I have previously stated, I have reason to believe that the participation by this country will be on a satisfactory scale.

TURKEY AND PERSIA (COTTON MILLS).

Sir PARK GOFF: 17.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any further information with regard to the Russian loan to Turkey for the erection of cotton mills in Turkey, and how far the buildings have been proceeded with; and if similar buildings are in contemplation in other countries, such as Persia and Iraq?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and therefore it is not possible to answer the second part. With regard to the third part, I have no information that definite plans have been made for the erection of a cotton mill in Iraq. In Persia, however, several mills are understood to be in the course of equipment, but not with machinery of Soviet origin.

Sir P. GOFF: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the export of Russian fabrics to these countries is still continuing?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the machinery in the textile mills already constructed in Persia is of British origin?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that machinery has been exported from Lancashire to Persia; that the whole of the machinery from certain mills in
Lancashire has been exported; and cannot steps be taken to deal with it?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I should require notice of both those questions.

FOOD AND DRINK (IMPORTS).

Sir A. KNOX: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of imports of food and drink from foreign and Empire sources, respectively, in the years 1930 and 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): During the year 1930, the total declared value of articles of food and drink, including living animals for food and feeding-stuffs for animals, imported into this country from foreign countries was £283,227,000 and from British countries £176,169,000. The corresponding figures for 1933 are not yet available, but I will send them to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as they have been compiled.

EMPIRE TEA (RUSSIAN PURCHASES).

Sir P. GOFF: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain information in future as to the location of the purchases by the Russian authorities of Empire-grown tea so as to ascertain whether British exports to Russia under the trade agreement contain purchases of Indian and Ceylon tea represending, in aggregate, additional British trade, or whether the purchases in question are merely the transfer to the United Kingdom of orders which have hitherto been, or would normally be, placed in India or Ceylon and not in the United Kingdom?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I see no reason at present to undertake any special inquiry on this subject, but the working out of the arrangements under Article 3 of the Anglo-Soviet Commercial Agreement will, of course, be watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK (SCHOOL SUPPLIES).

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the necessity of making contracts by 1st April, he can now state what arrangements are contemplated or have been made to assist the supply of milk in schools by means of his proposed grant of £500,000;
whether the local education authorities are expected to co-operate in this work and how many local authorities have taken steps in this matter; whether any provision is to be made to guarantee the purity of the supplies; whether it is proposed to distribute the milk in bottles or in milk churns; whether the milk is to be given free of cost to the children and, if not, what price they are to pay; and, if the price to them is to be reduced, how is payment of the balance of the cost to be arranged?

The Minister of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As I indicated in the statement which I made on the 22nd February, it is for the Milk Marketing Boards in the first instance to frame programmes for expenditure from the milk publicity fund, which must include arrangements for the supply of milk to schools at reduced rates. Pending the necessary legislation, and the submission of programmes by the Milk Marketing Boards, I am not in a position to make any statement on the points to which the hon. Member refers. I would add, however, that there is no reason to delay the conclusion of contracts in the ordinary way for the Supply of milk to schools for the summer contract period. It would, of course, he open to the parties to make provision for modification, if necessary, as a result of any programmes that may be submitted and approved.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: When does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot give a date, but I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.

LAND (UTILISATION) ACT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the improved state of national finance, he will now remove the restrictions on the operation of Sections 14 and 16 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931?

Mr. ELLIOT: The position is still as stated in the answer which I gave to the question on the same subject which was put to (me by the hon. Member on the 27th November last.

Mr. WHITE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer with a view to the possibility of removing these restrictions?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am constantly in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

EGGS (SUPPLY SITUATION).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now considered the representations made to him by representatives of the British egg industry in regard to the increasing imports from Denmark and other difficulties with which the industry is faced; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave on 15th March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte).

MILK PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the remuneration for the sale of milk products largely exceeds the profits of the producers; and whether he will take steps to lower distributive milk-product charges to the advantage of both producer and consumer?

Mr. ELLIOT: As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I have no power to lower distributive charges.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation is very serious, and that producers, in the West of England at any rate, will not sign contracts at figures which are really below the cost of production, while retailers are revelling in profits?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was asked to take steps to lower distributive charges, and I have no such power.

Major HARVEY: Has my right hon. Friend no power whatsoever to prevent complete ruin overtaking a large number of farmers in the West country?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the fact that the producer always gets the dirty end of the stick, and the distributor the clean end in these arrangements?

BACON.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture
whether he can now make a statement as to imports of bacon from foreign countries, having regard to the supply of bacon from home and Dominion sources, which will be available during the period ending 31st December next?

Mr. ELLIOT: In arriving at a decision on this question, the following factors have been taken into account: (i) the estimated yield of bacon from the pigs contracted to be supplied to factories by producers in Great Britain in the 10 months ending 31st December next and the estimated supply of produce from Northern Ireland, (ii) the estimates of marketings of Canadian, New Zealand and Australian produce furnished by the respective Governments and representing increases on the rates of marketing in the last period of about 10, 25 and 65 per cent. respectively, and (iii) the allocation proposed in the case of the Irish Free State. Having regard to the probable monthly distribution of these supplies, the Government have decided that an even and adequate supply to the market will be secured by increasing the permitted imports of bacon and hams from foreign countries by 3½ per cent. over present current rates in the first half, and decreasing them by 4½ per cent. below present rates in the second half of the period referred to. The foreign Governments concerned are being informed accordingly.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture to whom application should be made for compulsory redemption of tithe?

Mr. ELLIOT: Application should be made to the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 7, Old Bailey, London, E.C.4, from whom instructions and the necessary forms can be obtained. I am sending copies to my hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend give the greatest possible facilities for accelerating this work?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to add to the statements made by him in October last, and several later dates, on the subject of the reconsideration
of the position of tithepayers in view of agricultural distress?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to introduce amending legislation on the subject of tithe rent-charge, and proposals will, I hope, be put before Parliament before the Easter Recess.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry into this matter, as that is very much desired by many people?

Mr. ELLIOT: No; I propose to take action.

INLAND WATERWAYS (RIVER NENE).

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the scheme to make the River Nene navigable from the Wash to Northampton, and thence to connect with the inland canal system affording water transport westward to the Severn estuary and Wales; and whether he can make any statement as to the cost and the execution of this scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have seen references in the Press to the possibility of a scheme such as my hon. Friend mentions, and certain proposals for improving the River Nene from Thrapston upstream, mainly for navigation purposes in connection with industrial development at Corby, were submitted to the Ministry about a year ago by the River Nene Catchment Board for a Government contribution towards the cost. As, however, no part of the operations proposed could be regarded as land drainage works of an emergency character, I was unable to recommend a grant. No detailed scheme was prepared, but the proposals visualised, which could have constituted but a small part of the comprehensive scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, would, I am advised, have cost at least £150,000 to carry out.

BEET-SUGAR COMPANIES.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the total share and debenture capital of the companies manufacturing beet sugar in Great
Britain; and what has been the total amount devoted by those companies, respectively, to reserves, depreciation, unallocated balances, and interest and dividends from the beginning of the subsidy period to the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


Capital.
£


Share capital as at 31st March, 1933
4,445,954


Debenture capital as at 31st March, 1933
1,479,533


Total capital
5,925,490


Allocations.



Accumulated reserves as at 31st March, 1933 (including capital reserves and special advances under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act, 1931)
1,392,555


Depreciation: total to 31st March, 1933
3,265,952


Unallocated balances at 31st March, 1933 (after payment of dividends for 1932–33)
93,090


Interest: total charges to 31st March, 1933
1,157,523


Dividends: total distributions in respect of trading years up to and including 1932–33
2,512,545

BROADCASTING (LUCERNE PLAN).

Mr. T. SMITH: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the action of certain continental radio stations in broadcasting on wave-lengths not authorised by the Lucerne plan; and whether, as such broadcasts are creating confusion amongst regular broadcasting stations, it is proposed to take any and, if so, what action on this matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Since the reply given on the 1st February to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Hanley), European broadcasting authorities have discussed, in conference at Geneva, the possibility of modifying the Lucerne plan in some respects in order to overcome the practical difficulties which have arisen in applying it. The recommendations made by this conference, which have only recently been received, are now under
consideration by my Department and the other Government Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, WALES.

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of villages in Wales which are still without any telephone system at all; and what is the cheapest rate he is now quoting for the installation of an exchange of any sort in villages?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of villages in Wales with sub-post offices but without telephone facilities is about 140, or about 13 per cent. of the total. No charge is made for installing an exchange in a village if a sufficient number of subscribers is forthcoming. The minimum rent payable by a subscriber for an exclusive line is £7 a year for a business installation and £5 10s. a year for a residential one. Call offices are opened in rural districts at the cost of the Post Office where they are likely to remunerative; otherwise a guarantee is required, the amount depending on the cost and revenue in the particular case concerned.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no privacy at all in the call-boxes in rural areas?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any particular case that he has in mind I will gladly go into it.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: What is the minimum number of subscribers for the installation of an exchange in a village?

Sir K. WOOD: Eight.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: How does this percentage compare with that of England and Scotland?

Sir K. WOOD: I will look into that, if it is not too dangerous a subject for me to follow. During the last two years we have added 80 call offices in Wales in this particular respect.

HOP AND PARK TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, LONDON.

Mr. MABANE: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the frequent confusion experienced by subscribers between the Hop and Park Ex-changes,
he will alter the name of one of these exchanges as soon as conveniently possible?

Sir K. WOOD: Service observations do not disclose that the confusion between these names is sufficiently serious to justify the alteration suggested. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that such difficulty as there is will steadily diminish with the progress of conversion to automatic working, as more and more calls for these exchanges are dialled. I am advised that there would be considerable objection from many subscribers if these long-standing exchange names were now altered.

Mr. MABANE: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication whether either or both of these exchanges is likely to go on to the automatic working soon?

Sir K. WOOD: It will be a matter of some little time, in accordance with the policy already indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

CLOCK TOWER.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 30.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in connection with the repairs to the Clock Tower, it is proposed to overhaul Big Ben and the Westminster chimes; whether this will involve silencing the bells and, if so, for how long and from what date; who will carry out the repairs if required; and what is the estimated cost?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It has been found necessary to overhaul and clean the great clock and to re-hang some of the chiming bells. All the bells will be silenced for a period of approximately two months from the 30th April next. The repairs to the clock will be carried out by Messrs. E. Dent and Company, of Cockspur Street, the manufacturers of the clock, under their current contract, but the bell mechanism will be overhauled by the same firm at a cost of £260, under a separate and special contract.

WESTMINSTER HALL.

Mr. GROVES: 31.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the interests of cleanliness and health he will
arrange for the removal of the cobwebs from the walls of Westminster Hall?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The walls in question will be cleaned in 1935, when it is proposed to erect scaffolding for the purpose of examining the roof timbers. I may say that the spiders live in the roof.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the foreign matter to which I have referred is not in the roof at all, but clinging to the walls, and can be easily removed with the use of a ladder? Is there any reason why such a historic building should be in such a dirty condition?

Mr. BURNETT: Will my right hon. Friend consider at the same time the question of spring-cleaning the Crypt with some material destructive of paint?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 32.
asked the Attorney-General the names of the advisory committee for Glamorgan appointed for the purpose of selecting justices of the peace?

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the names of the advisory committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the names:

Glamorganshire Advisory Committee.

Chairman: The Right Hon. the Earl of Plymouth.

Lieut.-Colonel J. I. D. Nicholl, J.P.

Lieut.-Colonel H. E. M. Lindsay, C.B., J.P.

Major Sir William Cope, K.C.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Rhys Williams, Bart., D.S.O., K.C., J.P.

Abel Potter Thomas, Esq., J.P.

Henry Howard Evans, Esq., J.P.

Alderman Sir William Jenkins, M.P.

Alderman Hubert Jenkins, J.P.

Mathew Griffiths, Esq., J.P.

Mr. DAVIES: 33.
asked the Attorney-General the number of justices of the peace in the Pontypridd Parliamenetary Division?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I regret I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman this information. No record is kept of the number of justices in a Parliamentary Division, since they are appointed to
serve in a county generally. For convenience they are usually allocated to different Petty Sessional Divisions, but the boundaries do not as a rule or in this case coincide with those of any Parliamentary Division.

Mr. DAVIES: 34.
asked the Attorney-General what considerations as to suitability and qualifications are taken into account when making appointments of justices of the peace?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor relies upon the local advisory committees to recommend to him persons of moral and good personal character, general ability, business habits, independent judgment, and common sense.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is some feeling in Glamorgan that public men who have rendered great service are being debarred from this honour by other persons who have rendered much less service? Will the Lord Chancellor reconsider the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will call my Noble Friend's attention to the question, but I think I may say that all the men in Glamorgan who possess all these qualities cannot possibly find room on the bench.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Why is it easier for a Socialist working man than for a Tory working man to get on the bench?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer to that question is that it is not easier.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Is not the answer that there are many more Socialist working men than Tory working men?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the qualifications named are very high ones?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MAIL SERVICE (CHINA).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is expected that there will be an air-mail service to China; and what route this is likely to follow?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As I indicated
in reply to a question on the 15th March, the whole matter is under active consideration. The negotiations are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to make any useful statement, either as to possible routes or otherwise. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the question is one of much intricacy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mrs. RUNGE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is considering the desirability of recommending to local authorities engaged in slum clearance work in industrial districts the temporary use of public parks and open spaces for providing decanting accommodation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The circumstances of different towns vary greatly, but my right hon. Friend would give sympathetic consideration to any practicable proposals submitted by local authorities for the temporary use for decanting of parks and open spaces in their ownership.

Mrs. RUNGE: Bearing in mind that summer is approaching, does the Minister not think that this would be the best time to do anything of that nature; and is it not desirable to start at once, instead of wasting another year?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I entirely concur in that general statement.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the word "decanting" an official term used by the Ministry in connection with this work?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It does not occur in an Act of Parliament, but it is a rough and ready way of describing something which everyone understands.

Mr. MAXTON: Would the hon. Gentleman consider getting some other word more appropriate for use in reference to human beings.

REQUIREMENTS.

Mr. MABANE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he can indicate the nature of the evidence on which the conclusion is based that the supply of houses to be let at 10s. a week is adequate to the demand?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The evidence to which my hon. Friend refers was given
in answer to a question by the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on 8th February last, and is briefly that, at the present time, local authorities are still engaged in completing subsidised houses while private enterprise is building small houses to let in increasing numbers.

Mr. MABANE: Does the figure of 10s. refer to the rental inclusive of rates, or exclusive of rates?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Inclusive.

Miss CAZALET: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient small-rented houses are being built in the big urban districts?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am never satisfied with anything, but I believe that, as a result of our policy, a greater number of such houses will be built in the next few years than ever before.

The table below gives the information desired for February of each year since 1931, but in view of the changes in the conditions for the receipt of insurance benefit, which came into operation in November, 1931, the figures for February, 1931 are not strictly comparable with those for later years.

Insured persons with claims admitted.


Employment Exchange.
23rd Feb., 1931.
22nd Feb., 1932.
20th Feb., 1933.
19th Feb., 1934.


Standard Benefit.
Transitional Benefit.
Insurance Benefit.
Transitional Payments
Insurance Benefit
Transitional Payments
Insurance Benefit.
Transitional Payments.


Maesteg
2,391
812
967
2,880
404
3,145
260
2,559


Ogmore Vale
313
283
395
477
303
554
155
737


Pontycymmer
844
343
782
512
316
944
210
1,040


Aberkenfig
283
342
214
443
188
558
152
585


Bridgend
662
227
504
487
333
692
280
722

PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government's policy of restricting immigration into Palestine includes measures to control and restrict Arab immigration from Transjordania; and whether any increase in Arab immigration is accepted as a reason for restricting Jewish immigration?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. While persons habitually resident in Transjordan may enter Palestine direct although not in possession of passports, their settlement or employment in Palestine is subject to their qualifying for

UNEMPLOYMENT (GLAMORGAN).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and transitional payments, respectively, at Maesteg, Ogmore Vale, Pontycymmer, Aberkenfig and Bridgend Employment Exchanges for the last four years, separately, to date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman read out the averages for each of these places?

Mr. HUDSON: There are eight columns of these figures.

Following is the statement:

registration under the Palestine Immigration Ordinance. I understand that the number of such immigrants from Transjordan is in fact small. As regards the question of immigration into Palestine generally, I would remind the hon. Member that this is governed by the economic capacity of the country to absorb new entrants.

FOREIGN NAVIES (PERSONNEL).

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 41.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of naval personnel and reserves in the United States of America, France, Italy, and Japan at the latest available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The approximate numbers are as follow:


—
Active Service Personnel.
Reserves.


U.S.A.
…
105,500
50,000 (a)


Japan
…
88,000
(b)


France
…
66,500 (c)
(b)


Italy
…
53,000
(b)


(a) Excludes retired officers and men and Naval Reserve O.T.C. about 5,800 in all; also excludes Coastguard personnel.


(b) No recent numbers have been published.


(c) Includes about 2,670 port ratings.


These numbers are not strictly comparable owing to differences in the organisations of the various navies.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the number of officers and men of the United States of America coastguard service are included in the return of the personnel and reserves of the United States of America; and what the present numbers are?

Lord STANLEY: Officers and men of coastguard service are not included in the numbers given for the naval establishment.

The approximate numbers are:


Officers
…
…
1,200


Enlisted men
…
…
9,500

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS' SERVANTS (DOMESTIC DUTIES).

Mr. HICKS: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Private Stanley Madin, recently of the Northants Regiment, was advised in September, 1933, prior to his appointment as an officer's servant, that his new duties were voluntary and not subject to military discipline; whether such appointment entitles an officer's wife to issue instructions to such servants; and whether he will, in the public interest, institute an inquiry into this case?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have
now received a full report on this case. The late Private Madin volunteered to undertake the duties of officer's servant. He was warned that if he was unable to perform his duties satisfactorily he would be returned to ordinary duty, but that he would not be punished for inability to perform domestic duties. A soldier servant does not come under the orders of an officer's wife. I see no reason for taking action as suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. HICKS: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that soldiers, if they refuse to accept jobs as batmen to officers, do not fear the consequences?

Mr. COOPER: I am quite satisfied of that, and, as a general rule, soldiers are very anxious for these jobs.

Mr. HICKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a big volume of public opinion to the effect that while batmen may legitimately be used as an indulgence to officers, they should not be used as domestic servants to officers' wives?

Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: Is it not the case that there is a tremendous demand for these jobs because of the extra pay?

Mr. COOPER: That is the case and if an officer's wife occasionally asks her husband's servant to do something for her, he will naturally perform such duties. No complaints of difficulty have ever arisen.

Mr. HICKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are instances where officers' wives have reported the behaviour of men, who have joined the Army for a military career and not for the purpose of entering domestic service; and that when men have become batmen, if they have not responded to the wishes of officers' wives, they have been reported to the officers and the officers have then threatened to report them to the guardroom and to give them such fatigues as sanitary fatigues?

Mr. COOPER: I have not heard of any such cases, and that certainly did not occur in the case under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Cannot an officer's servant ask to be returned to ordinary duty any time he likes; and is not such a request always complied with?

Mr. HICKS: In view of the incomplete and unsatisfactory answers which I have received, I give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

SERVICE PENSIONS AND RETIRED PAY.

Mr. HICKS: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Service pensions and retired pay which have been awarded to former members of the Regular Army are regarded as payments for past services; whether such pensions or retired pay or any portion thereof are taken into consideration in fixing rates of remuneration in the event of any recipient being subsequently employed by the Department; and, if so, can he state the reason for this policy and also indicate the basis of computation which is adopted in fixing the rate of remuneration in relation to the amount of Service pension or retired pay?

Mr. COOPER: The retired pay of commissioned officers involves a liability to recall for service in an emergency, up to certain age limits, but the Service pensions of other ranks are regarded solely as payment for past services. Retired pay and Service pensions are not taken into consideration in fixing the remuneration of persons subsequently employed by the War Office in posts not reserved for ex-members of the Forces. In the case of classes of employment which are reserved solely for such persons, the scales of remuneration are suitable for individuals in receipt of retired pay or pensions, and have been fixed at an economic level having regard to the cost of alternative methods of carrying out the particular work.

Mr. HICKS: Do I understand that retired pay or pension for past services in the case of men who may take on employment is included in regard to their economic circumstances, or do I understand that pension and retired pay are part of an accumulated reserve, that when men join the Army they join at a lower rate of pay than they would ordinarily receive in industry, and that the amount they should have received has accumulated to a certain provision to give them a pension at the end?

Mr. COOPER: If the hon. Member will read my answer, which is rather difficult to understand, he will see that such
retired pay is never taken into consideration except in the case of officers who are re-employed in the War Office on jobs that are reserved entirely for officers. In those cases, their pay is taken into consideration; otherwise, the work in question is given to people very likely outside the Army altogether.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMP-SON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be able to give a day for the discussion of the question of the reform of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can only refer my right hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 29th January last in reply to a similar question.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May we take if for granted that it is no longer against the public interest that this question should be discussed in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: That may be so, but it is quite evident that the time for a proper discussion has not come.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very urgent that the League of Nations should endeavour to bring in every great Power?

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give facilities for the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that I can hold out no hope of special facilities being given for this Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are His Majesty's Government considering dealing with this question next Session?

Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that this question is being considered by another body in another way?

NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House as to the steps taken to fulfil the undertaking
given in 1927 that the range of buildings at Greenwich which includes the Queen's House will be devoted to the purposes of a National Maritime Museum?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The matter has been under consideration since the buildings in question were vacated by the Greenwich Hospital School, and His Majesty's Government have recently received a generous offer from Sir James Caird of his magnificent collections, with a promise, in addition, to defray the cost, estimated at £29,000 of putting the buildings in order for their reception. The Government have expressed their warm appreciation of this offer, and they propose to introduce into Parliament at an early date a Bill for the establishment of a National Maritime Museum. The contents of the Naval Museum at Greenwich will be transferred, as will the handsome gifts already made by Sir James Caird and others, in anticipation of the establishment of the museum.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can publish a return showing what percentage of the electors voted in each town at the municipal elections on 1st November, 1933, and at each county council election held during the present month?

The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that I cannot comply with the hon. Member's request, as the particulars would have to be obtained by special inquiry from nearly 450 local authorities, and this would involve considerable expenditure.

GERMANY (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir P. GOFF: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the default by the German authorities upon obligations to which British investors have subscribed activates a principle preventive of the future placing in Britain of any loans by German and other foreign public authorities; and will he notify the German authorities prior to the reconsideration of the German transfer moratorium that it is desirable
that there should be an agreement with their British creditors?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend fully realises the serious effect which might result from action of the kind mentioned in the question, and the German Government is already aware that His Majesty's Government regard it as an essential principle that, if any temporary sacrifice is to be asked of the creditors in present circumstances, it should be discussed with the creditors with a view to reaching an agreed arrangement.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is exactly what the German Government have not done, and that they have forced a unilateral default on their British creditors without agreement by those creditors?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My answer deals with that point.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Mr. WHITE: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has any information as to the number of persons from whom pensions under the Blind Persons Act have been withdrawn, as a result of re-examination, during 1933 and 1934?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

LOCAL LOANS FUND (ADVANCES).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to advise the Public Works Loans Board that, in view of the low interest charges obtaining on war stock and bank deposits, they should further reduce the interest charges upon public borrowings?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the hon. Member is aware, the rates applicable to new advances from the Local Loans Fund were reduced as from the 13th March. It is not possible to reduce the rates applicable to existing advances without endangering the solvency of the fund.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that that was so infinitesimal that it cannot be hoped to give very much relief to local authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It may have been small, but at any rate it was something, and the rate at which we lend depends on the rate at which we can borrow.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (CONTRACT).

Captain STRICKLAND: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the contract entered into with the Associated Equipment Company by the London Passenger Transport Board is for the supply of the same or a larger number of vehicles, etc., than that covered by the pro forma contract alluded to in Section 6 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933; and whether that supply is confined to the requirements for the service formerly given by the London General Omnibus Company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am informed by the board that the number of omnibuses specified in the contract entered into between the board and the company does not exceed the number covered by the pro forma contract to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and that the particular omnibuses, which are subject to the contract, are generally those employed on services formerly operated by the London General Omnibus Company and the other three companies specified in the first Schedule to the pro forma contract.

MANCHURIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS (for Captain ARTHUR EVANS): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that the extra-territorial rights under the treaties between China and Great Britain, which guarantee the liberties of life and the security of property for British citizens in Chinese territory, still hold good in Manchuria in spite of the Japanese military occupation; and what is the position of a British subject in Manchuria at the present time?

Sir J. SIMON: No special steps have been found necessary to secure the treaty position of British subjects in Manchuria, which remains unaltered.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interval since the Committee on the Unemployment Bill last sat, the Government have considered afresh any of the provisions of the Bill which have given special concern to this House and to the country, and upon which representations have been made privately by Members of this House; and, if so, whether before the Committee stage is resumed he can indicate any substantial modifications the Government intend to propose?

The PRIME MINISTER: As has been repeatedly announced, the Government have been giving the closest consideration to the Unemployment Bill in the light of the Debates that have already taken place. There would, however, be no advantage in anticipating the further discussions on the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the Prime Minister really aware of the serious feeling there is in the country on very substantial points that have been raised, and that if no announcement is made to-day, we shall have to wait at least another fortnight before any statement is made by the Government; and, in view of the time that has already elapsed, cannot some statement be made now?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are very well aware that a great deal of misrepresentation is about regarding both the provisions of the Bill and the intentions of the Government, but this House ought to know perfectly well how the situation is. I am certain that we ought to continue our work during the Committee stage, and then the Government will make their announcement regarding the further progress of the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not dealing with misrepresentations, unless they are misrepresentations by the majority of Members of this House. I am dealing with questions that are alarming the country, on which the Government have had about three weeks to consider their attitude. The House will not consider the Bill again for a fortnight, and surely the public are entitled to know before the House meets again whether there will be any alteration in the programme
of the Government. Seeing that under the time-table we cannot move the Closure, will the Minister of Labour move the Closure, or move to report Progress, so that this matter can be further discussed?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The Prime Minister has said that the Government have taken into consideration the Debates that have taken place; will they also consider that on the two most important provisions of the Bill no Debates have taken place, on account of the Guillotine? Will the Government now say whether they propose to recommit the Bill in respect of those two Clauses?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that question at least half-a-dozen times, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. MAXTON: Will not the Prime Minister consider that there is in this House, apart from the Opposition, a huge body of opinion that is interested in these matters; and, apart from things misrepresented, does he not think it will be treating the House with something like fairness, if the Government have come to a decision on vital points as a result of their discussion, to tell us now what it is, as I am sure we should be told if the Opposition numbers were of somewhat greater importance?

The PRIME MINISTER: The last statement made by my hon. Friend is erroneous. We have a way of doing business in this House, and that way will be pursued. It is a very reasonable and proper way. I can assure my hon. Friend, as I have already done, that the opinion of all sections of the House is being considered by the Government in making up their minds as to what is to happen after the Committee stage is concluded.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In order to help the Government to make up their minds, will the Prime Minister advise the Minister of Labour to move to report Progress to enable a discussion to take place on the further stages of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the Prime Minister think it good business on an important Bill to throw it aside for several weeks, then suddenly to take it
up for one day, to throw it aside again for an indefinite period, and then to take it up once more? Would it not be much better for the Government, if they intend to proceed with the Bill, to make a definite announcement to-day of their intentions in regard to its future progress? The present method is misleading the country, and it would be much better if the proceedings to-day were delayed until after the Budget so that the financial parts of the Bill could be reconsidered.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are anxious to proceed with the Bill. The House well knows that at this period of the year it is necessary to complete a certain amount of financial business before the end of the financial year, whatever other business is before the House; and we have taken the first opportunity of proceeding with this Bill again.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL,

"to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section thirty-four of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. Oliver Stanley; supported by Secretary Sir John Gilmour, Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins, the Solicitor-General, and Lieut.-Colonel Headlam; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Third Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [11th Allotted Day].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Superannuation rights of officers of local authorities entering the service of the Unemployment Assistance Board.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 45, line 20, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

In line 26, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

In line 29, to leave out from "to," to end of line 31, and to insert "the following and any other necessary modifications."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) does not wish to move the first and second of these Amendments. It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss the entire scheme under this Clause on the third Amendment.

3.36 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 45, line 29, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 31, and to insert:
the following and any other necessary modifications.
I am grateful to you, Captain Bourne, for allowing a general discussion on this Amendment. Under Clause 50 rules may be made by the Treasury, after consultation with the Minister of Health, with respect to the superannuation rights of persons who are officers of local authorities with pensionable service and who will by this Bill be transferred to the new board. As I understand Clause 50 such rules may provide (a) for the application of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts, and (b) on retirement from the Civil Service for payment of superannuation allowance by the local authority whose service the officer left in order to enter the service of the board. It is understood that the intention of the Government is that the rules shall prescribe that the superannuation allowance to be paid by the local authority shall be based
on the number of years service with that local authority and upon the salary or average salary which the officer was receiving from the authority at the moment of his transfer.
The effect of the Clause as it stands would be that such a person, instead of being superannuated on the basis of the salary received by him at the time of his retirement from the proposed board and on the aggregate of his years of service, would be superannuated by the local authority as regards his local government service, on the length of that service and on the basis of his salary at that time, and by the board as regards his service with the board, regard being had to the salary or average salary received by him at retirement. Perhaps I could illustrate it better by a concrete example. Let us assume that an officer had 10 years' service with a local authority before his transference to the board, and that he was receiving £300 a year when he left that service; let us assume that he joined the board and had 20 years' service with it, and on retiring was receiving £600 a year. What sort of superannuation will he receive if Clause 50 is carried? He will receive 10/60ths of his £300 from the local authority, that is to say, £50. and 20/60ths of £600, that is £200, which is the equivalent of 20/80ths plus a lump sum under the Civil Service scheme from the State. In a word, he would receive £250 a year after his complete service first with the local authority and then with the State. If he had continued in the service of the local authority throughout the whole of his period of service, he would have received 30/60ths of £600, or a superannuation of £300, whereas he will in fact receive only £250. He will, therefore, be penalised to the extent of £50 a year because of his transference.
It may be objected by the spokesman for the Government that the new board will have no fund into which such transfer values could be paid. I suggest that the spirit of equity which has always decreed that an officer of a local authority who has been transferred to another authority should suffer no disservice in consequence of the transfer should operate in this case. In order to provide for a transfer value in the case of Poor Law officers who were transferred under the Local Government Act of 1929 but remained under the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, it is proposed
that an officer transferred to the board shall either come under the Local Government and Other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, or under the local Acts scheme, if the local authority possess a superannuation scheme; and if the local authority have no superannuation scheme, then it is suggested that the officer himself should pay his transfer value to the board.
I am speaking this afternoon on behalf of the National Association of Local Government Officers, a very important body. I am advised that this proposal for payment of a transfer value receives the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and judging by the fact that there is a proposal very much like mine standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte) I am entitled to assume that it also receives the support of the County Councils Association. There is thus a joint acceptance by two great authorities, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, and the great body for which I am speaking, the National Association of Local Government Officers. In view of that weight of opinion I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I wish to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). The point is really a very simple one, although the law relating to superannuation and the pensions of civil servants is very complicated. We wish the word "shall" to be substituted for the word "may," in that way requiring that rules shall be made providing for the pensioning of officers transferred to the board.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): That has not been moved.

Mr. FOOT: If it is understood that that is the intention of the Government, of course there is no necessity for that minor Amendment. I thought all Amendments were to be dealt with together.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I understood you to intimate from the Chair, Captain Bourne, that the
Government had concurred in the view that there should be a general discussion based on this particular Amendment, in order that we could review the general position of officers under this Bill. Is not that so?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I told the Committee that I understood the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) did not desire to move his first Amendment—
page 45, line 20, to leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall.'"—
which, incidentally, had nothing to do with his scheme. What I suggested was that as the hon. Member's scheme is a somewhat elaborate one, and is covered by various Amendments on the next four pages of the Order Paper, it would be convenient if we discussed that scheme as a whole on this Amendment, and that the scheme should stand or fall as the result of the division, if any, on this Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: No one would wish that as a result of the alterations which are now being made, the men now employed in local government who are to be transferred to the service of the State should be in any worse position in regard to their superannuation. The instance given by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth makes it clear that those men would be worse off under the conditions laid down in the Bill. In the illustration which he gave a man had been serving a local authority for 10 years and at the end of that period was earning £300 a year. He then passed into the service of the board and works under the board for 20 years. At the end of that time he will have put in 30 years' service. How is that man's pension to be reckoned in accordance with the terms of the Bill? In respect of his 10 years' service with the local authority he would receive as pension ten-sixtieths of the of the £300 salary which he was earning at the end of the 10 years, that is, £50 a year. In respect of his 20 years' service with the board he would be given twenty-sixtieths of his salary at the end of the 20 years, and, presuming that salary to be £600, he would receive £200. Adding the £50 to that, he would receive as pension £250. That is under the terms of the Bill, together which the rules, which are in draft.

Mr. MAXTON: That is £5 a week. Better than 15s. 3d.

Mr. FOOT: Supposing the man had done his whole 30 years' service with the local authority instead of being transferred into the Civil Service, and that he had earned the same salary, he would then have had a pension reckoned at thirty-sixtieth of his salary at the end of 30 years, and the pension in that case would be £300. Alternatively, if the man had spent the whole of his 30 years with the board or in the Civil Service he would in that event also receive a pension based upon thirty-sixtieths of his salary at the time of retirement, and assuming that that salary was £600 the pension would be £300. Here, however, where the man's service with the local authority is broken at the end of 10 years, his pension is to be smaller; he receives only £250. That is a loss to which he ought not to be put in consequence of the changes which are being brought about at this time and which are, presumably, in the naitonal interest. We ask that that anomaly shall not be created.
Instead of the Bill's proposal that at the end of a man's service the local authority shall be called upon to contribute their proportion, we ask that they shall, upon a man being transferred, pay the transfer value. The Bill provides that, when service has been completed, a man's pension is to be made up by two contributing factors, one the local authority and the other the board. We suggest that upon the man being transferred, the transfer value shall be paid to the board and into such fund as may be created by the Treasury in consultation with the Ministry of Labour.
For the policy which is contained in our Amendments there are ample precedents. Suppose that a man has been serving under a local authority and that he is transferred to another local authority instead of to the Civil Service. Under the existing law, and under the Rules that have been prepared, there is ample precedent for the authority which the man is leaving to pay over to the new authority a transfer value in respect of his pension. Suppose that a man leaves a local authority and goes to some statutory authority like the London. Passenger Transport Board. Precedents are already in existence, and it is the custom, for the
transfer value attached to the man's service on the local authority to be passed over to the statutory authority on which he is to serve. We ask that the precedent that now exists, as between one local authority and another or between a local authority and a statutory authority, shall apply as between a local authority and the board which is being set up by this Bill.
It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth that the proposal is not repugnant to the desires of the great employing local authorities. They are, in fact, in favour of it. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has an Amendment on the Paper very similar to that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth. We prefer our Amendment because it is a little fuller, and we think that it is a little clearer. It makes provision for the old Poor Law officers who have a rattier special case, because of the Superannuation Act, 1896. We hope that our Amendment will commend itself to those who have put down the other Amendment, which is intended to achieve the same purpose.
I think it is generally agreed that it would be wise not to leave any grievance in the minds of those who are now to be called away from local service into the Civil Service. Our Amendment is fairer as between the public and the public servant. It does no injustice to anyone, imposes no unconscionable burden, and it gives to the man who has been transferred from a local authority to the Civil Service what he would have had had his service with the local authority been continued or what he would have had if he had been working from the beginning under the board or in the Civil Service. I want to make one explanation. I used the word "sixtieths" just now. The working out of the pension of a local government officer is calculated in sixtieths. In working out a pension for a civil servant the calculation is upon eightieths, hut, in addition to the eightieth, there is a bonus, and the bonus, if added to the eightieth, makes it practically equivalent, for the purpose of working, to the sixtieth. Working out the pension on the basis of the sixtieth applies, therefore, to the local authority and to the Civil Service.
I believe that this is an Amendment which the Government should accept because it will secure a great measure of good will for the very formidable change that is now being carried out. The Government should be anxious to have the full support of its officers. I do not, of course, suggest that if the Amendment is rejected there will be any reluctance on the part of the officers to perform their full public service, but, if there is some sense of injustice, based upon what it must be admitted is an anomaly, that is a reason why the Government should accept the Amendment. The present proposal will inflict a loss upon the men concerned of as much as £50, in the circumstances of which I have spoken.

3.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is not often that I have the pleasure of agreeing with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) but I agree with him in regard to the Amendment, as far as I understand it. The terms of the Amendment are similar to those of the Amendment which stands in my name, and there is nothing in it with which I am not able to agree. If the Amendment which is now before us is accepted, I shall reserve my right to move Amendments to it upon the Report stage. We consider that the method adopted by the Government in this superannuation proposal is absolutely unsound from the local government point of view. We have already heard that it is unsound from the point of view of the men themselves. I do not propose to deal with the position of the men as it has been fully dealt with by the hon. Member for Bodmin, but there is no doubt from the local government point of view the proposal is unsound, particularly at this time, when nothing of this sort should be passed in the Bill, because of the fact that negotiations are going on now with regard to the general question of transfer of local government officers to the Civil Service and vice versa. If a method of superannuation of this sort is set up in the Bill, it is likely to be regarded as a precedent.
As has been pointed out, the rights of superannuation of transferred officers are divided into two parts by the Government scheme, one part relating to service under the local government, for which the local government will remain responsible, and the other part for which
the Government will become responsible. The local authority will find it necessary to keep detailed accounts and to go into intricate calculations about men who have ceased to be in their employment, and who will never return to their employment again. There seems to be no reason whatever why the Government should not adopt a system which has worked perfectly well under the Superannuation Act of 1922, in regard to the transfer value which is handed over when a man is transferred from one service to another.
None of the arguments used by the Government seem to have any great substance. One is that there is no Government superannuation fund at present, but there is nothing on earth to prevent the Government from starting a superannuation fund. I believe the Government say that, as there is no superannuation fund, any transfer value has to be paid into the Treasury, and will, therefore, be absorbed for current expenditure, leaving future years to pay the whole value of the pension. There is no reason whatever why a superannuation fund should not be started by the Government. We are making many alterations in the law in this Bill, as we do in every Bill that we pass. There is no reason why such an alteration should not also be made, and why it should not work smoothly and well between the Government and the local authority. The other objection which I believe might be raised is that the Government, being the last authority, have, therefore, to pay the largest amount, on the supposition that the salaries paid by the Civil Service are higher than those paid by local government. It must be remembered that the men are not transferred from the local authorities to Government service for their own pleasure, but because there is no further work for them under the local authorities and the authorities are bound to transfer them to the Civil Service in order to continue them in employment. There is no reason to suppose that the men will consider the Civil Service more attractive than service in local government. This superannuation system, as I have said, works perfectly simply and reasonably under the local authorities, and I can see no justification for the Government refusing to adopt it. The County Councils' Association and the Association
of Municipal Corporations attach very great importance to this, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I hope that, on grounds of justice and equity, the Government will accept the Amendment, but I am anxious to put before the Minister another point. It is true that officers who have been engaged by local authorities for some time will have accumulated transfer value, and I am hoping that that point will be appreciated. I am concerned, however, about the person who is likely to be taken over but who, up to the present, has been engaged temporarily, and will not be entitled to any superannuation at all. I wonder whether it will be possible to bring in my point here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think not. I think that that will arise on the fifth Schedule. They could only come under this Amendment if they were pensionable, and thus possessed a transfer value.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wands-worth (Sir H. Jackson) said in moving this Amendment, although one would not gather it from the clarity of his speech, this appears to be a very complicated subject. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate have made the points they desire to make extremely plain. I think, however, that there is some misapprehension, if I may be forgiven for saying so, in the minds of those associated with the Amendments we are now discussing. The Unemployment Assistance Board will, of course, on its creation have to engage its officers and servants, and, presumably, it will seek to avail itself of those who have experience in similar work; in other words, it will seek to avail itself more particularly of relieving officers and those who have been engaged in the administration of the Poor Law. Normally if these officers took advantage of any offer of employment outside their own service, they would sacrifice whatever pension rights might be due to them. That is the normal practice. Obviously, a new employer is not formally
concerned with any pension rights that a man to whom he is offering a job has enjoyed or may be forswearing. On the one hand, you have the employer who offers the new work, and, on the other, you have the person to whom the work is offered. The employer offers work upon such terms as he thinks will attract the person, and the person, considering all the circumstances and all the prospects, has the choice, and makes up his mind which is the better alternative for him to pursue.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: There really is no alternative. They are obliged to accept, or they will be redundant.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the misapprehension which I desire to remove. The ordinary Poor Law of the country will go on. This is not a Bill to transfer en bloc a certain class of municipal employés to another service. This is a Bill, as I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. (Mr. A. Bevan) agrees, which establishes an Unemployment Assistance Board, and that board is entitled to engage its own staff. It will, as I imagine, seek to take advantage of the experience of many who are now engaged in the local service upon this particular kind of work, but there is no compulsion upon any of these officers to accept work under the new board.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Many of these officers will be engaged on means test work which will cease to operate, and, therefore, these men will have no more work in which they can be employed under the local authority, who will be bound to get rid of them, and there will be no work for them to do, except under the Assistance Board.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is confusing the temporary man, whose position the hon. Gentleman opposite just now desired to raise but which it is not relevant to discuss, with the permanent person who is under some kind of contract which provides him with a pension. That is the person with whom we are dealing here. The Unemployment Assistance Board will, I suppose, take steps to bring to the notice of these people the terms upon which it will engage them. We do not know the terms at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Central. Wands-worth and my hon. Friend the Member
for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) took a series of figures, and showed that if those figures were accepted by the committee the man who took employment under the Assistance Board would be worse off than if he remained where he now was. If that be the case, he will not accept the post. It stands to reason that if this Board desire to engage persons of experience and ability, they will have to offer them such terms as they are likely to accept.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Suppose they do not accept this position. Will they then go on in work where they are at present, or will they lose their work altogether?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Presumably, they will continue in work under the local authority. There is no compulsion here of any kind, and, in so far as they are performing work under the Poor Law, that work will continue. I think I have made that position clear to the Committee.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I understand the position to be that there is no compulsion on the new body to take over these people in the same way as in the case of the Poor Law a short time ago, and, if so, will it not mean the redundancy of all those posts and that they will be dispossessed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It means nothing of the kind. This is not a Bill such as the Bill which removed one set of officials from the board of guardians to the other local authority. This is a Bill which enables the Unemployment Assistance Board to engage such staff as it may desire, and, as I say, the normal procedure is for a man who has the opportunity to accept work under a new authority, to make up his mind whether or not he will accept that work, and it is his own concern if he sacrifices any pension rights. But there is one exception to that, and that is in the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, with which hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), were identified. That Act established a Board of Control in analogous circumstances. It is the provision in that Act that we are following here, and it is the only Act upon the Statute Book which deals with the preservation of rights to those who transfer
from the local authority to the State. In all other circumstances, the procedure has been for a man to sacrifice his rights.
In order to smooth the transference, and in order that there may not be any reluctance by persons now working under the local authority to accept the new posts, we are proposing something which, I am sure, the Committee will agree is eminently fair. We say that in so far as they have acquired pension rights under the local authority, they shall conserve those rights in full, and receive pensions due to them in respect of their service under the local authority on their ultimate retirement from the Civil Service, and, in addition, receive from the State a pension in respect of that service which they have given to the State. In cases where their service, either under the local authority or under the State, has not been long enough to qualify them for a pension, they shall be entitled to aggregate the two periods for the purpose of pension. I hope that the Committee will see we are really proposing something which is generous and just in respect of those who may accept the new employment.

Mr. CAPORN: In the case my hon. Friend last mentioned who will pay—the State or the local authority?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The local authority will pay what it owes in respect of service rendered to it, and the State will pay what it owes. Of course, the State cannot be expected to take over a liability in respect of service not rendered to it, but the local authority will meet that part of the obligation, and the State will meet its own part.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: If the man did not qualify for any superannuation rights, who pays in respect of those years?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is exactly the right which is given to the man. He would not be entitled, in normal circumstances, to a pension at all if he left the local authority's service of his own accord. But we say that, however short the period may have been during which he has served the local authority, the appropriate pension in respect of that period shall be given to him by the local authority. That is, I think, a perfectly clear answer to my hon. Friend. The persons, therefore, are in this advantageous position: In the first place, it
is optional whether they take the new service or not; in the second place, they will have to be attracted into the new service; in the third place, they will escape paying contributions out of their salaries for their pensions. In the calculation which was presented to us by hon. Members who have spoken, the Committee was not told that at present they contribute to their own pensions by deduction from their salaries, which, of course, is worth some additional sum to them, seeing that they now get a pension which is non-contributory. The pension in the Civil Service is calculated on the actual salary at the date of retirement, which is an advantage to them, because under the local authority system it is caflculated on an average salary for the previous five years. I do not think that when the Committee considers those facts, it will conclude, as my hon. Friend suggested, that some injustice was being done. Quite the reverse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth does not like this scheme, which is a simple, clear-cut, easily comprehensible scheme, leaving the local authority to pay what is due from it, and leaving the State to pay what is due from it. He does not like this scheme; he wants another scheme far more complicated, and which will be, as I will submit to the Committee, impossible to administer. It is not that we are unsympathetic to his scheme, and certainly not to those prospective servants of the board, but the scheme he advocates, after due examination by us, has been found to be unworkable. In the first place, he wants the total period of service of any person engaged both under the local authority and under the State to be considered as service under the State. That is an absolutely untenable suggestion. Why should the State accept a liability which the local authority itself does not accept? A man may have been in the service of a local authority, not in any pensionable capacity at all, for some period. Under my hon. Friend's proposal, all his service—not his pensionable service, but all his service—the Amendment says "the whole service"—would be reckoned as service in the permanent Civil Service of the State.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does not the Amendment, in turn, ask that, in respect
of a servant of a local authority, there shall be, either a transfer value where there has been a superannuation scheme, or, where there has not been a superannuation scheme, such contribution from the local authority as shall be determined?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. My hon. Friend will, perhaps, allow me to deal with these matters in sequence. If he will refer to the first Amendment, he will see that I am accurately quoting it. It says:
That for the purposes of the said Acts the total period of service"—
whether pensionable or not—
…shall be deemed to be service in the permanent Civil Service of the State.
I say that that is putting upon the State an obligation which properly should not rest upon it, because, if the service was not considered to be pensionable by the local authority, it should not be considered to be pensionable by the State. I now come to the second proposal, which I assure my hon. Friend I am not going to attempt to escape. That is that the local authority should pay to the State a transfer value in respect of each person taken on. "Transfer value" is a technical term, introduced by virtue of the Local Government and Other Officers (Superannuation) Act, 1922. It is something like the surrender value of an insurance policy. To have a transfer value, you must have paid into some fund, and the transfer value, like the surrender value, is the present value of your future rights. Before there can be a transfer value, there must be a fund into which contributions have been paid, and, as I have said, the term owes its origin to the Local Government and Other Officers (Superannuation) Act. That Act was a permissive Act. Local authorities who had no pension scheme of their own were offered this model scheme, under which they could establish a superannuation fund into which contributions were paid, and, once the fund was there, it was possible, on the transference of a servant of a local authority from one authority to another, where both the authorities had adopted the scheme, to make an arrangement between them about the transfer value.
But only a certain number of authorities have adopted the Act, nor is it the only Act under which pensions are paid.
Before that Act was passed, certain classes of officers had pensions under Acts of Parliament, such as the Poor Law officers and the asylum officers. There is no superannuation fund there, and, therefore, there is no fund out of which a transfer value could be paid. In those cases, pensions are paid, as they fall due, out of the rates. Other authorities, on the other hand, have schemes under their own local Acts, which differ from all the other schemes that I have already mentioned, and they do not include superannuation funds. Therefore, in order that the proposal of my hon. Friend should work, there would have to be a fund possessed by the authority transferring, and a fund possessed by the authority to whom the person was transferred. In this case you are dealing with two unlike subject-matters. Even where there is a fund—and, as I have shown, that only applies in a number of cases, and not in all—even where there is a fund in the hands of the local authority, there is no fund in the hands of the State, because the local authorities have contributory pension schemes and the State has a non-contributory scheme. Therefore, there is no fund whatever into which this transfer value, even if it could be assessed—which I have shown would be administratively almost impossible—could be paid, and the hon. Gentleman will see that the analogy must fall to the ground. This transfer value generally applies in the case of sporadic transfers where individual officials are exchanged between one authority and another. You cannot assimilate all the various local schemes and all the various local funds, and still less can you assimilate the position where there is no fund at all to the State's non-contributory scheme.
For those reasons, and having examined most carefully the proposals of my hon. Friend, we have decided to adopt the only simple and logical way of dealing with these officers, and I am sure that anyone who examines the problem impartially will agree that it is the only logical way. My hon. Friend, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), said that there was some agreement between a certain officers' association and the local authorities about these Amendments. I am not surprised. There is always agreement when there is a possibility
of getting something more out of the Treasury. They are not disinterested bodies, and, naturally, they would like to improve even upon our magnanimous terms. But any impartial person examining how this matter could be settled would be forced to rely, if anything were to be done at all, upon the precedent set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield in the Mental Treatment Act. He found a way of doing this—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was it?"] It is exactly the precedent for the provision in this Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: One is entitled to know what the provision was which I put into the Act and which affects this Bill and provides a precedent.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wants in any way to detract from his own scheme. I am sure he will agree that I, for my part, have done my best to explain this matter as lucidly as possible. I have given way with the intention of answering every question that has been put to me. There is no party question involved here, but only the question of common sense and justice. Sub-section (9) of Section 11 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, has in it exactly the same provision—if the right hon. Gentleman insists I will read it to the Committee—for the transfer of officers to the Board of Control, and that is the precedent upon which we have relied. We have relied upon it because there is no other way of dealing with the matter in a clear-cut fashion. I hope I have dealt fairly with the Amendments. I am not in the least hostile to them in principle, except in so far as they would impose an undue burden upon the Exchequer. I think it is inconceivable that it will be found in practice that these officers will lose anything by the proposals that have been made, because, if that were to be the case, and the terms offered to them were disadvantageous, quite plainly they would not accept them.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to enter into this struggle at all; indeed, I am not particularly interested in the matter. A large number of officers who have been doing this work during recent months have been doing it in such a way as would
not justify them, in my estimation, in having any superannuation terms at all. If they were to be treated in the same spirit as that in which I have come across them treating unemployed men, what they would be getting would be something very trivial. But I do desire that any arrangement that may be come to should be clear and understandable, and, frankly, although I have listened to the very lucid explanations of the Mover of the Amendment and of the Financial Secretary, I admit that I am not quite clear yet as to what is to happen. I would ask the hon. Gentleman this question: Do I understand that the Clause as drafted means that, if a man presently working with, say, the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee, and having, say, 10 years' service in that work of local government, is taken over by the new Unemployment Assistance Board and does 30 years' service with the board, when he comes to retire there will be a demand from him or from the board that the Glasgow ratepayers shall then start paying superannuation to a man who has left their service 30 years before?

Mr. LOGAN: In respect of the 10 years' earlier service.

Mr. MAXTON: I should think that that is a tremendously clumsy proposal. I can imagine, in my own little burgh in Scotland, a man leaving 30 years ago and coming up to London or to some other part of Britain, and then, 30 years afterwards, when everybody had forgotten who he was, the Government coming along and saying, "You have got to pay superannuation to this fellow, who left you when he was a boy," and I can see a ratepayers' meeting, the smashing of the town hall windows, and a general lively time in the old town. However many difficulties the hon. Gentleman may see in accepting the proposal of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), it seems to me that, when and if a particular employé leaves the service of a local body to go into the service of the nation as a whole, whatever responsibilities the local authority has incurred to that man should be settled at the time when he leaves, and should not be left as a contingent liability to be met 20, 30 or 40 years afterwards. If the Clause as drafted means that local authorities are going to be saddled with responsibilities
for servants of whose future they have no control or direction or even knowledge, I personally should oppose the Clause as it stands in favour of any alternative proposal which settles the business connection between the servant of a local governing body and that governing body at the time when he leaves, and not at some subsequent period.

4.30 p.m.

Major HILLS: I thank the Financial Secretary for his admirably clear statement. I think he has put the alternatives fairly before the House. I do think, however, that the way which he has chosen of settling the man's pension, and paying the pension, has certain disadvantages. The whole House is agreed that a man should be entitled to a pension for the whole period of his service, whether with a local authority or with the State, and the only question on which we differ is the application of the principle. There are three ways of settling the question. There is, first of all, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), which the Financial Secretary objects to. Then there is the suggestion of the Bill. As I understand the Bill, the man would get two pensions. He would get his pension from the local authority, and he would get his pension from the State. I think that may be all right as far as the man is concerned, but I do not think it is the best for local authorities.
It is far better for local authorities to settle their liability when the man leaves their service and to pay to the board his transfer value. To that the Financial Secretary raises a very real objection, and that is the objection that I want to meet. He says you are not transferring from like to like. It may be that a man who has served a local authority has earned a non-contributory pension, and therefore there is not a transfer value in the hands of the local authority to which the man has contributed. On the other hand, if there is that fund, and he has contributed, and he transfers to the State, the State pays a non-contributory pension. Therefore, says the Financial Secretary, there may be no fund from which you can pay the transfer value, and there cannot be any fund into which you can pay the transfer value. Surely it is not so in reality. A man in the service of a local authority who has earned pension
rights has a claim against that local authority even if there is no fund into which he has paid. He has served certain years, and there is a liability, easily calculable, on that local authority, and there would be no difficulty in any actuary telling the local authority the exact amount that the man had earned and the present value of his future pension. To the local authority that is a far more satisfactory way. If a man leaves their service, it is far better that they should pay all their liability to him and not, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) just said, be called upon 20 or 30 years hence to pay a sum to a man who long ago had left their service. It is much easier for the local authority, because the man goes and takes his pension rights with him and the matter is settled once for all.
The Financial Secretary says that will not do, because there is no fund which can receive the transfer value—no purse into which the money can be paid. But there is, in effect. Each year that a man serves the State he imposes a liability on the State for future pension, and I am certain his pensionable value is calculated, because it is piling up against the Exchequer, and though there is no actual fund, because the State is so solvent that it need not have a fund, still that man's insurance value is an ascertainable sum, and it is always there. All that you have to do is to credit some special fund in the Exchequer with the transfer value. I am sure the Financial Secretary will see that that, from the point of view of the local authority, is far more satisfactory. It settles their liability once and for all. It is the same for the man, I agree. He gets his full pension anyhow, but it is far better for the local authority, and I ask him if it is inconvenient or confusing for the State. The State will receive credit for all the liability previously incurred for the man and that will be credited to the State, which pays the pension. The State will be in exactly the same position, and I do not believe any more bookkeeping will be involved. I do not know whether it is too late, but I hope my hon. Friend, who has so very clearly stated the case, and has it so well in his head, will see the difficulty in which he places local authorities and will endeavour to meet the point.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: When during the discussions on this Bill we see either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary, we know perfectly well that finance is the first consideration and that nothing else matters. I am very glad that the Financial Secretary is here, because in the meantime he has been improving his education. He has been reading the Mental Treatment Act, of which no doubt he was completely ignorant until about last Friday, and the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922. He informs us learnedly of the law with regard to Poor Law superannuation, asylum officers' superannuation, and the existence of numerous local Acts of Parliament with all of which he is no doubt perfectly familiar. He uses this smokescreen in order to put up the usual Treasury objection to doing anything.
The Treasury never wants to spend any money. That is one of its fundamental principles. The Financial Secretary is here in order to prevent any more money being spent than can possibly be prevented. The most astonishing thing is that he goes to the Mental Treatment Act to find a precedent. That was a very small point. We were only dealing in that Act with the reorganisation of the Board of Control—a very small number of people, not more than four commissioners and a chairman. It was not a case of a wholesale transfer on a substantial scale from local authorities to the national Service. The terms of the transfer are not put forward by the Treasury. But they were set out in Clause 11 (9, a) of the Mental Treatment Act. There is nothing about Treasury rules at all. Therefore, the precedent really fails. Even if it were a precedent for a very small number of people, the case of the transfer of a very large section of the Poor Law now in the hands of local administrative bodies to a national body provides an entirely new situation. The Financial Secretary says that these other schemes are complicated. Of course they are. But the Treasury is never afraid of complications if it can save money. It is only afraid of complications if they involve more expenditure. Complications have never deterred the Treasury. The reason is that the Financial Secretary feels that this complicated proposal may involve the
Treasury in rather more expenditure, and he falls back on this excuse. He says that local authorities' officers when they leave the local government service normally sacrifice their pension rights. The point is that the vast majority never normally leave local government service, and those who do are bribed by their new employers by a substantially larger salary and often by a capital payment equivalent to their pension rights. Distinguished persons have been bought from the Treasury—I do not mean in any sense derogatory to them, but the terms on which they have left the Treasury for outside employment have been an increased salary and the capitalised value of the accruing pension as civil servants.
The Financial Secretary says there is no compulsion on these people to become officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board. They can stay where they are. But they are not quite in the same position as civil servants. You are taking from the Poor Law a vast majority—I do not say all; that is one of our complaints—of the unemployed able-bodied who fall outside Unemployment Insurance benefit. You have a number of officers who have served public assistance committees and have dealt with precisely that class of case. When those cases are no longer dealt with by the local authority but by this new bureaucratic Unemployment Assistance Board, the work of these officers will become in a very large number of cases unnecessary. It is not a case of them hanging on to their job, but a number of them will find their agreements terminated. They will be put out of work. They might see the Unemployment Assistance Board from a different angle.
Therefore, the question is not one of the State and local authorities' employés bargaining on equal terms. It is a case of the Treasury putting down the minimum terms which it knows a very large number of local government officers will be driven to accept, whatever the terms are, rather than face the consequence of future dismissal because their services are redundant. That is a very serious situation, and in the circumstances the Government, however bad its Bill may be, might at least be reasonable towards the local authorities whose servants these people are for the time being. The Financial Secretary is defending
now the very minimum terms which in decency they could offer, and not the kind of terms that ought to be offered if they are to expect loyal and devoted service from these new officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
I agree also with what has been said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). It is right that local authorities who are going to have to sacrifice their officers should know what their liabilities are, and it would have been much better had the Government been as definite as I was in the Mental Treatment Act instead of leaving it to rules the substance of which has been undisclosed to the Committee, but which are assumed to be based on Clause 11 of the Mental Treatment Act. If the hon. Member cares to persist in this Amendment, we shall be very glad to follow him into the Division Lobby.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I am rather at a loss to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood). I am not in the least clear—and he did not enlighten us on the point—as to what he wants and why he thinks the terms offered are inadequate. In the course of his speech, in order rather to create other grievances than to state those which he realised, he seemed directly to challenge the assurance given by the Financial Secretary that no man would be faced with the alternative of accepting the new job or losing his work altogether, and that it would be open to any servant to say, "No, I prefer to keep the job I am in at present, and I do not want to transfer."

Mr. MAXTON: Is that the case?

Mr. REID: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say so.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: How can the Financial Secretary give an undertaking on behalf of the local authority?

Mr. REID: He has given an understanding, as I understood it, that these people would not become redundant, and that it would not become necessary to dispense with their services.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) should be clear in his mind as to what the Financial Secretary said. He said
that I had challenged an undertaking given by the Financial Secertary that these people would be able to continue at their work if they did not like to take the jobs on. These people are employed by local authorities, and the Financial Secretary has no kind of authority over them whatever. He can give no such guarantee. My opinion is that if they become redundant they will lose their jobs.

Mr. REID: The question is: Are the services of any officers going to be dispensed with as the result of the passing of this Bill, and not as the result of some action taken by the local authority independent altogether of the passing of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is the considered opinion of local authorities that a large number of men now employed by them will lose employment as a result of this Bill. There will be less work for them to do, and they will not be required by the local authorities, so they will have no alternative but to accept employment under the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. REID: I understood that the Financial Secretary pointed out that it applied undoubtedly to temporary service but did not apply to permanent service. If it be that a considerable number of people are to be faced with the alternative of accepting such terms as the board choose to offer or being out of work altogether, it will put a different complexion on the matter. I certainly understood from the progress of the Debate, and from what the Financial Secretary said—and it was accepted by all speakers until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field spoke—that in point of fact there would not be any considerable number of people who would be faced with the alternative of either "You have what the board choose to offer you or you get nothing at all." That is a question of fact upon which I have not the least doubt the Financial Secretary will be able to enlighten us before the Debate comes to an end. Those who know the statistics must realise whether there is any danger of any considerable number of people being faced with that alternative or not. If they are faced with that alternative, of course, one will have to be more careful in seeing whether the terms offered are just. If they are not
faced with that alternative and really are entitled to "opt" instead of choose, and if they are to have a free choice, we must leave it to them and need not be so meticulous in our examination of the details of this matter.
Suppose for a moment that I am wrong in my assumption and that it is a fact that people are to be compelled to join the service of the board or lose their employment altogether, surely the important thing is not their superannuation rights, but what are their salary terms to be? The superannuation rights which they are to have are very small in comparison with the salary which they are to receive from the board as compared with the salary which they are receiving from their present employment. If you are faced with the choice of taking a new job or getting nothing to do at all, you first think what is to be the commencing salary in the new job, and then you think what is to be your annual income. Your ultimate pension, whether it be £250 or £300, is a small matter in comparison with the other matters. In view of what the Financial Secretary has said, there is not a very large discrepancy in the worst case, and in many cases there will be an advantage to transfer, because an officer will get his pension on his final year instead of on the average of the last five years. Putting one thing against another, it seems to me that, even if those officers are not given any choice at all but are compelled to transfer, they will get perfectly just treatment. But one would welcome an explanation from the Financial Secretary as to whether they are to have the right of choice, or whether there is to be some manner of compulsion, because there will be no work left for them to do unless they transfer?
As to the position of local authorities, surely it is a very odd state of affairs to have the Treasury coming forward and saying, "We do not want your money to-day, but would rather have it 30 years hence," and, on the other hand, the local authority coming forward and saying, "For goodness' sake, take a capital payment from us to-day. Let us pay you the money to-day rather than pay you in the future." I cannot understand why a local authority in cases where it has no actual funds in hand out of which it can pay the money would rather raise the capital sum to-day than pay an annual sum of a much smaller amount in the
more or less remote future. It may be that it simplifies accounting from the point of view of the local authority, but beyond that I am at a loss to see that it is in the interests of the local authority to pay a large capital sum to-day rather than pay a small annual instalment, commencing, it may be, 20 years hence. In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary has definitely said and explained how this is much more convenient in the general cases, and in the absence of some clearer indication as to how the local authority is to benefit by the change proposed, it seems to me that the scheme proposed by the Government has everything to be said in its favour.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: It is not necessary for the Debate to go on much longer because most of the arguments in almost all the speeches to which we have listened have a greater bearing on the Fifth Schedule than on the Amendment which is before the Committee. The chief difficulty in respect of local government officers is that it imposes no obligation upon the Unemployment Assistance Board to employ the services of redundant local government officers. That is the difference. This Clause makes it clear that the board intend to reserve to themselves the right of employing servants from anywhere. The great danger is that the employés of the local authorities will have accumulated larger salaries, and the Employment Assistance Board, in order to keep down its administrative expenses in the first years, will therefore not be interested in employing the employés of the local authority. That is one of the difficulties. They will take employés with junior rank and those who have not been able to accumulate such large salaries.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we need pursue on this Clause the subject of whom the board is going to employ. The question is as to how the pension rights of those who may be transferred shall be dealt with.

Mr. BEVAN: It seems to be rather hard on me, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that I should only be allowed to spend three minutes on this matter when other speakers have spoken for half-an-hour on the same point. The difficulty is that the local government officers employed by public assistance authorities will very largely be redundant. It must be appreciated that the Bill is taking over the public assistance authorities, and the service upon which was expended £6,500,000 in the standard year 1932–33, and upon which more than £8,000,000 is now being spent. It is true that the local authorities will still have to pay 60 per cent. of that sum, but they will not have to employ people to spend it, and there will be a very considerable redundancy on the part of the local authorities.
I ask the Committee to realise that the sum of £8,000,000 is spent in respect of precisely those services which will be transferred to the board. They are not transitional payment officers who are purely temporary. It will be in respect of the payment of able-bodied poor who will come under the administration of the board. Local authorities will have nothing whatever to do with them in the future, and it is those officers who will be affected by the Clause. As the board will take advantage of not employing the services of expensive officers, many of these men will be faced with the danger of unemployment. I simply rose in order to safeguard our rights when we come to a discussion of the Fifth Schedule and to make it clear to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we do not accept the position at all that these men will not be put in a precarious position. The local authorities certainly will not be able to levy rates to pay the salaries of officers whose services will have been rendered redundant by the establishment of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Sir H. JACKSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 59.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[4.59 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Albery, Irving James
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Apsley Lord
Baldwin Rt. Hon. Stanley


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hartland, George A.
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Harvey Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bossom, A. C.
Hellgers, Captain F, F. A.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Boulton, W. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, James S, C, (Stirling)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hope, Capt, Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Remer, John R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan, John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Burnett, John George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Butler, Richard Austen
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salt, Edward W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Law, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lees-Jones, John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrlc
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chotzner, Alfred James
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Levy, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarke, Frank
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Sir Donald


Clarry, Reginald George
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stevenson, James


Cooper, A. Duff
Loftus, Pierce C.
Storey, Samuel


Copeland, Ida
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Steurton, Hon. John J.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Mabane, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Cranborne, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Crooke, J. Smedfey
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Taylor, Vice-Admlral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Thompson, Sir Luke


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dickle, John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Doran, Edward
Martin, Thomas B.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Meller, Sir Richard James
Train, John


Duggan, Hubert John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton. E.)
Tree, Ronald


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eales, John Frederick
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, William Shephard
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Munro, Patrick
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gibson, Charles Granville
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
North, Edward T.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Goldie, Noel B.
Nunn, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Granville, Edgar
Peake, Captain Osbert
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Pearson, William G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Greene, William P. C.
Penny, Sir George



Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Womersley.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leckle, J. A.
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James



Grundy, Thomas W.
Moreing, Adrian C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Paling, Wilfred



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

5.8 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I beg to move, in page 45, line 38, after "their," to insert "pensionable."
I think this only amounts to a drafting Amendment. It will be noticed that Clause 50 says:
Rules may, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, be made by the Treasury after consultation with the Minister of Health with respect to the superannuation rights of persons who, being officers or servants of local authorities with pensionable local authority service, become officers or servants of the board.
Paragraph (b) says:
…they shall be entitled in respect of their local authority service, etc.
The word "pensionable" has been left out. I am advised that it is necessary to have the word "pensionable" in there, because the service would not be recognised unless it had been recognised under a pension scheme of the local authority. In Sub-section (3) there is a definition of "pensionable local authority service." I think the word "pensionable" must have been left out in paragraph (b) not intentionally but by an error of omission.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is right, and I am obliged to him for having noticed the omission.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HUME: I beg to move, in page 46, line 12, at the end, to add:
and the expression 'enactments' includes schemes relating to the superannuation of officers and servants of local authorities made under or in pursuance of any enactment.
The words of the Amendment speak for themselves. They do not mean a great alteration.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We do not suggest that an officer should be entitled to superannuation under an Act and not
under a scheme. The Amendment would remove any doubt that the rights will be enjoyed even if the officers were under a superannuation scheme instead of an Act of Parliament. Therefore, I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Rules and Regulations.)

5.12 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 46, line 21, to leave out from "and" to "Parliament," in line 22, and to insert "approved by."
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that Parliament will have an opportunity of examining and approving the rules referred to in Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) reads:
The Unemployment Assistance Board may make rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this Act to be made under this Part of this Act (except rules authorised to he made under the last foregoing Section), but no rules made by the board shall have effect until confirmed by the Minister, and any such rules shall, when confirmed, be laid before Parliament.
When we refer to the rules in this Clause we have to observe the functions of the board which is responsible for making the rules. That board comes into existence under Clause 34 and is designed to assume responsibility for the whole of the activities under Part II. The board is to consist of not more than six persons and is to have very definite functions imposed upon it. Clause 34 (2) says:
The functions of the board shall be the assistance of persons to whom this Part of
this Act applies who are in need of work and the promotion of their welfare and, in particular, the making of provision for the improvement and re-establishment of the condition of such persons with a view to their being in all respects fit for entry into or return to regular employment, and the grant and issue to such persons of unemployment allowances (hereinafter referred to as "allowances") in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
The board is to have full responsibility for providing relief and assistance to all those persons who fall within Part II of the Bill and who have left Part I because their period of benefit has been exhausted. It affects a very considerable number of people; and, in addition, the conditions under which people receive benefit under Part II are different from those which are applicable to persons under Part I. These conditions are to be determined by the Unemployment Assistance Board which is to be responsible for making the rules referred to in Clause 51. These rules will apply to a variety of conditions and circumstances. In order to give effect to Clause 34 rules are necessary under Sub-section (2) of Clause 35, which says:
Rules made under this Part of this Act may provide that a person shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, be deemed to be capable of and available for work notwithstanding such periods of occasional sickness or incapacity as may be specified therein.
And so we go on. We find references to rules which have to be made by this board to meet special classes of beneficiaries and governing the conditions under which benefit may be allowed. In Clause 37 there is the controversial question as to the circumstances under which people under Part II of this Bill are to receive benefit, it is the question of the means test and family circumstances. There, again, the rules which will lay down the conditions for benefit are to be, made by the Unemployment Assistance Board. The whole range of administration is set aside for the authority and determination of this board, subject to their report to the Minister, who has reserved for himself the right to accept or disagree with their recommendations. They may submit their recommendations to the Minister and he may make alterations in them, but these recommendations, changed or unchanged according to the Minister's wisdom, are to come before this House, but they cannot be discussed. Parliament is to have no opportunity
of suggesting any amendment or change in the rules. It is important that we should realise what we are doing in allowing this board to make these rules without adequate supervision by Parliament.
I ask hon. Members to read Clause 37 and see the wide scope of administration which is to be laid down in these rules. We have the comprehensive conditions under which the means test is to be administered, the measure of assistance to be given, the measure of family income which is to be taken into consideration, the allowances per head of the family; all these matters are subject to rules. There is nothing in the Bill which enables an hon. Member to know the conditions under which the means test and its administration is to be carried on in future. The Unemployment Assistance Board by these rules is to have full and complete control of the work and administration of Part II of the Bill, the largest and most important part as affecting the larger number of persons and a greater amount than under Part I. The people who are the most helpless and most dependent are to be left, not to the care of the Minister but of the Unemployment Assistance Board, who are to make their own rules in regard to administration without check or hindrance, and even without the consent and approval of Parliament. It is true that there is to be approval in a general way by Parliament, but Parliament is only entitled to say yes or no in a general way to these rules. They will not be able to amend them in any particular, make any alteration or rectify any injustice. The whole of this work is to be left in the hands of the Unemployment Assistance Board, who are to draw up rules in accordance with provisions laid down in Clauses 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 41, all of which will require the framing of rules.
We do not know yet who are to be the members of this board. We have no idea as to their quality and experience. The Minister only is to be entitled to disagree with them. This House is not at any stage to be taken into consideration or to have an opportunity of amending, revising or checking these rules. The whole of the work of relief under Part II is to be under the control of this board, and they will administer assistance in accordance with their own regulations. If we pass the Bill as it is we shall be
adopting a centralised system which will make for a dead level of uniformity in administration, with no regard at all for local conditions and irrespective of the fact that conditions differ in one part of the country and another. By passing this Bill this House will have relinquished its right for all time of having any voice at all in the determination of the conditions under which 1,500,000 of our fellow countrymen with their dependents will receive that assistance which society is prepared to render them. This board, six in number, perhaps less, having made their rules and decided upon the form of administration which they think will suit their purposes best, will come to the Minister with their rules. He may say, "I do not quite like this rule," or that rule, and he may make suggestions or present alternative rules, but he is not entitled to take this House into his confidence or ask it to support him in any objections he may have to any recommendation. The Minister is defenceless against the board which is to be set up under this Bill.
We regard this part of the Bill with grave apprehension. This small number of people will be complete masters of the destiny of all those who ask for relief under Part II of the Bill, and it will be no use expressing sympathy about the vexatious questions which are troubling the minds of hon. Members in this House and people in the country at the present time. Journalists may go to the northeast coast and the county of Durham and write interesting, instructive and sympathetic reports as to the conditions there, but they will serve no useful purpose in arousing the sympathy of their fellow countrymen if in the meantime this board will have drawn up its rules against which there is no appeal or redress. If we pass the Bill unamended the people of this country will realise that the Parliament which they sent here to represent them has surrendered its responsibility to a small body of six people, who have no direct responsibility and who perhaps may have no experience or sympathy with the people whose lives they are to govern in this way. We shall press the Amendment. We hope that the Minister will accept it, and, in his own interests, reserve to himself the discretion not only to differ from the board but also to be able to press any amendments upon the board and take
this House into his confidence in the framing of these rules. Before they are confirmed and become operative this House should be allowed an opportunity of expressing, word after word and line after line, its assent or dissent to the recommendations of the board. We distrust and fear very much the possibility of a bureaucratic administration of this kind.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is one of the most important Amendments which will be moved to the Bill. It deals with Part II and covers practically the whole working arrangements under that portion of the Bill. It deals with powers affecting at least 1,000,000 people, if the figures remain as they are. This is a Clause which sets up the machinery to decide the conditions of life for at least 1,000,000 unemployed people and their dependants, and it is therefore no exaggeration to say that it affects at least 3,000,000 souls in the country. We are discussing one of the most important features of our social life. I may be a little critical but I feel that if we were discussing 3,000,000 people who came from a more comfortable strata in our population this House would show itself, if provisions like this were contemplated, in a stronger and more dignified fashion. What are we discussing? We are handing over to the Minister and to this board the right to make regulations. The Solicitor-General will probably say in reply that the Minister possesses power under the Clause to differ from the board and that he can state his difference and ask Parliament to uphold him. Therefore the Minister retains power to differ from the board and can refuse to accept anything they may propose. That may be so, but we are discussing the lives of people. The Minister may be excellently advised and the board may be very well chosen. We do not know who the board will be. It is most important to recollect that we are discussing the work of a board the members of which we do not know. The board may be composed of the most autocratic people one can imagine. I know that rumour can lie, but if rumour be correct as to the names associated with the creation of this board, knowing some of them, I view with alarm the trusting of any kind of work to these particular people. The board may be anyone, but they may use their power in
a grossly offensive way. Even if the board were composed of the most benevolent men we should remember that here we are laying down the conditions of their work. Let us take step by step the conditions that are to be laid down by the board. They are the conditions under which the income of a family will—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Under the Amendment that we are now discussing there is no question of any need test and what shall be taken into account in connection with the need test. Any reference to that subject would therefore not be in order. The subject can be raised under Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), but not on Sub-section (1), to which the Amendment we are now discussing refers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not intend to discuss the allowances to be made under the means test. I know that that point will arise later. But this Unemployment Assistance Board will have the power to frame and bring in rules dealing with the matter. The Board will bring in a series of rules dealing with points that have wholesale ramifications. The board may even bring in rules dealing with the question of rent, if a rent allowance is to be taken into account.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the sort of point which cannot arise under this Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The board are to have the power to make rules which will decide how the people are to be dealt with. The board will control the machinery and it is very important machinery. In many respects it is machinery which means little less than life or death. The board will have the determining voice. They may bring in rules which lay down a man's right to an interview with the officials. The rules may mean that a man would be deprived of that right. One of the things that a board of this kind ought to do is to safeguard a man's right to meet the case that is made against him. When the rules are framed this House is to have the opportunity of rejecting or approving them. It may well be that we shall be forced into a dilemma. That dilemma will not be as great to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, because generally speaking we shall adopt a very strong
attitude against all these things. But other hon. Members may think differently. We may want to insist on modifications being made in the rules. It must not be forgotten that it is not the first rules only that we are discussing now, but subsequent Amendments that may be made to them by the board. The board themselves may find in practice that certain of the rules are wrong. The House of Commons and the country may realise that in practice certain rules want altering. The board may then bring in Amendments to the rules—amendments which public agitation has demanded. The amendments may have certain points of goodness about them. This House may wish to vote in favour of those rules which are good, but it has not power to do anything but vote in favour of the whole of them.
That is depriving the Opposition in this House of a constitutional right. When a Bill is going through the House and it contains a certain amount of good the Opposition may agree to a Second Reading while reserving the right to move Amendments in Committee later. That is a constitutional right and a practice which ought to be safeguarded by this House. These rules affect at least 1,000,000 of the unemployed and, counting those dependent on them, they affect millions. The rules will lay down the conditions under which the unemployed are to receive benefit. Part II of the Bill is different from Part I. It has wholesale ramifications. One is the abolition of payment in money and the substitution of payment in kind, a step which for the first lime is being taken in dealing with the unemployed. These rules will lay down how that payment in kind is to be made.
I view the proposal to make payment in kind with more abhorrence than any other part of the Bill. It is dragging us back to the Truck Acts. Members of all parties fought to abolish that system in the old days. Once the system of payment in kind is permitted here it becomes a danger to everyone. It is worse than imprisonment for those who are affected by it. Take the case of a city like Glasgow, where at one exchange 22,000 men sign the register. It may be said that some of these men are not to receive benefit in money. That is far worse
punishment than imprisonment. It means that a man will be pointed out as one who is not like other men, that he is one who is not fit to receive money; and the rules that will govern that system are to be drawn up by this Board. Even a prisoner has the chance of a public trial at which he can state his defence, but here rules are to be laid down which will safeguard neither a man's public right nor his defence. Before the rules can be passed the least this House can demand is the right to revise them. The procedure should be analogous to the passing of an Act of Parliament. The ramifications of this Bill will be far wider than those of many Acts of Parliament. The rules should be laid before the House, they should be subject to Debate and Amendment, and only after the most careful scrutiny should they be passed by this House, for on them depend the well-being, happiness and comfort of millions of our fellow-people.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I feel sure after the two very impressive speeches to which we have listened that Members of the Committee will be in no doubt as to the gravity of the issues here involved. I am glad to see on the Front Bench my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General because I am sure that he is not likely to be a party to handing over to some bureaucratic body rights and duties which properly belong to the House of Commons. The two speeches to which I refer have been based on an assumption which may or may not be correct. The two hon. Members have I think assumed that the rules which will be made by this Unemployment Assistance Board under this Sub-section can be accepted or rejected by the House of Commons. I fear even that assumption is not correct. I do not profess to be an authority on procedure, but, as far as I can see, the House of Commons has not even the right of accepting or rejecting these rules. The Sub-section says:
The Unemployment Assistance Board may make rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular…with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this Act to be made under this Part of this Act…but no rules made by the Board shall have effect until confirmed by the Minister, and any such rules shall,
when confirmed, be laid before Parliament. "This is where I speak subject to correction, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain the matter to the Committee if he replies. As I see it, the position is that if a rule is laid before the House of Commons any Member may at some stage put down a Motion on the Paper dealing with that rule. If a Motion is put down in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, that Motion can be discussed after Eleven o'clock and thus time for its discussion is ensured. But if, as here, there is no provision in the Act of Parliament for putting such a Motion on the Paper, if the Act of Parliament merely says that certain rules are to be laid before Parliament, then, I understand, there will only be the opportunity to put a Motion on the Paper, but unless there is time for its discussion—and that is a great "unless"—nothing more will be heard of that Motion because it cannot be taken after Eleven o'clock and no time will be given for it before Eleven o'clock. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, these rules raise grave questions affecting the intimate interests of millions of people and it seems to me that they are likely to go by the board without discussion. The only safeguard will be that they must be confirmed by the Minister. In the present instance many of us would have a great deal of confidence that no bad rules would be allowed through if the Minister had to deal with them, but this may not always be the case and a Minister might be badly advised. It seems most important that there should be some kind of Parliamentary control over these rules and that there should be at least power to put down a Motion which can be discussed. I ask the Committee, before leaving this very important part of the Bill, to consider that aspect of the question and I ask the Government to give their favourable attention to this Amendment.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I wish to urge on the Solicitor-General a consideration which I raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill. These rules are going to affect the liberty of the subject. They are going to place restraints upon numbers of subjects and to vary their rights and privileges in certain ways and I put it to him, as a student of our constitutional
system, that if any such restraints are going to be placed on the subject, it is the duty of the House of Commons specifically to approve of them. I urge that consideration as a friend of the Bill. I think the system which the Bill proposes to set up is a good system but I recognise that it will begin under heavy difficulties and the Government responsible for it will have to meet all sorts of complaints founded or unfounded. I press upon my hon. and learned Friend that the system which is being inaugurated should be made watertight to this extent that where it imposes any restraint upon the liberty of the subjects such restraint should be directly approved by the House of Commons.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Part II of this Bill is drawn in such a general manner that it is sometimes difficult for hon. Members to appreciate the nature of the powers which it proposes to confer on this board. Attempts have been made during the Committee stage to bring those powers into relief but although those attempts have met with some success they have been partially thwarted by the operation of the guillotine. Many of these Clauses have not been adequately discussed and there still exists in many parts of the Committee, and in the country, a very incomplete conception of the powers which the board is to enjoy. Therefore, I take this opportunity of reminding the Committee of the matters in respect of which the board will be able to make rules. I was rather surprised, Sir Dennis, at a Ruling which was given in your absence by the Deputy-Chairman, interpreting in a very restricted manner the matters to which this Amendment applies. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was attempting to show, I thought quite rightly, that the board would be allowed to make rules which would have the most intimate bearing upon the people concerned. The board in these rules will even have the right to decide what a family is. The whole question of the means test centres round this question of what is a family and the only guidance we have is in Clause 37 of the Bill, Sub-section (2) of which provides:
The amount of any allowance to be granted under this Part of this Act to an applicant shall be determined by reference to his needs, including the needs of any members of the household of which he is a
member who are dependent on, or ordinarily supported by, him.
That is very general language. I have known households to consist of aunts and nephews and nieces and all sorts of people.

Mr. DENMAN: Is the Unemployment Assistance Board given the power to make rules in respect of Sub-section (2) of Clause 37?

Mr. BEVAN: The word "regulation" does not occur in that Sub-section, but Sub-section (1) states that subject to the provisions of the Act an allowance may be granted to any person to whom Part II of the Act applies if he proves certain matters "in accordance with rules made under this part of the Act." The matters are then specified under three headings (a), (b) and (c), the first of these being:
(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner and has made application for an allowance in the prescribed manner.
I am sure that my hon. Friend who always gives the phraseology of Clauses in Bills meticulous and microscopic examination will admit that it is the board which is to make rules with respect to any part of this Clause which is not qualified by the word "regulation."

5.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): Perhaps I may intervene at this point and put my view. Section 37 which the hon. Member has quoted provides that the amount of any allowance to be granted under this Part of the Act to an applicant shall be determined by reference to his needs. Then if we turn to Sub-section (3) we find that the need of an applicant, that is to say the need with reference to which Subsection (2) lays down that the amount of the allowance is to be granted—
shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act.
I think it is quite clear that the regulations which are to be drafted under Subsection (3) constitute the only place where the board can deal with the matters referred to in Sub-section (2), namely, the number of the household who can come within the ambit of need for the purpose of assessing the amount of the allowance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But Sub-section (1) provides that subject to the provisions of
the Act an allowance may be granted thereunder to any person to whom Part II applies if he proves certain things:
in accordance with rules made under this Part of this Act.
It is in accordance with "rules" and not "regulations." Then follow the matters which the applicant has to prove and among them we find:
(c) that he is in need of an allowance.
It is under rules he must prove that he is in need of an allowance and not under regulations.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps it will be convenient if I also state my view now on this other point which has been raised. The rules to be made under Sub-section (1) are merely procedure rules as to how proof is to be given, as to the filling up of application forms, as to what is sufficient evidence and so on. When we come to the question of what are the needs to be assessed and how they are to be assessed, that is entirely under the regulations.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General for having put the matter as I think very clearly, but when he first rose to speak I was on the point of getting up to confirm the Ruling already given by the Deputy-Chairman, and I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to that Ruling.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: On a point of Order. Reference has been made to Clause 37 but in Clause 38 there is I submit confirmation for the view which has been put forward from this side. Subsection (3) of that Clause states:
Where an applicant for an allowance is dependent on or ordinarily supported by another member of the household who is also an applicant for an allowance, any determination granting an allowance to the first mentioned applicant may, subject to and in accordance with rules made in that behalf under this Part of this Act, determine that the allowance granted to him shall be issued wholly or in part to the second mentioned applicant.
Thus, it will be seen rules have to be made dealing with all these things. That provision is very definite and, I submit, it is quite right to say that the rules will cover even the administration of the means test in many details.

The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Gentleman has said does not alter my Ruling.
The details referred to are not those with which we are dealing now.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It was not my intention to try to broaden this discussion into a discussion of the means test and if your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and that of the Deputy-Chairman were intended to prevent the discussion from being broadened in that way, you are, I submit, putting on a restraint to which we have no desire to offer any resistance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. He is assuming that there was an idea in the minds of the Deputy-Chairman and myself which was never there at all. It is our business, not to consider that, but to consider what is covered by this particular Amendment. It is clear to my mind that under this Amendment nothing can be discussed which has to be dealt with by regulations, as referred to in Clause 37—regulations, as distinct from rules.

Mr. BEVAN: May I submit with great respect that there is a very wide field of discussion as to whether indeed a Clause is covered by rules or regulations, an interpretation in regard to which I am certain the Committee would not always like to force a verdict on the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately for the hon. Member, it is the duty of the Chairman to give Rulings, and I have done so in this case.

Mr. BEVAN: I was going to say, with respect to the statement of the Solicitor-General, that Sub-section (3) of Clause 37 can properly be regarded as providing for the making of regulations determining the amount, and I think I am entitled still to argue that the rules will decide the framework in which that amount is to be calculated.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to respect my Ruling.

Mr. BEVAN: It does not seem to me, despite what the Solicitor-General has said, that the language of the Bill is so clear on this question. In Clause 35, at the end of Sub-section (2), there arise very great difficulties affecting the relationship between public assistance authorities and the Unemployment Assistance Board as to what persons are properly to be chargeable to the board and what to the local authorities. The
board will have power to lay down rules to determine how long a man shall be sick and still be chargeable to the board and not to the public assistance authority. That is a point of very considerable substance, because many public assistance authorities are afraid that if a man gets a short attack of influenza, for example, he will be immediately transferred to the local rates, whereas he is still, to all intents and purposes, a genuinely unemployed person and has not passed into the category of a sick person at all. A man therefore can be transferred to the local rates, and when he recovers he can be transferred back again to the Unemployment Assistance Board, in such a way as continually to shift from the board on to the local rates burdens that the board itself ought to carry. That involves the local authorities to a very large extent, and we shall have no opportunity of discussing it.
This power can be used administratively as a very powerful lever for the reduction of public assistance standards of benefit all over the country, because hon. Members who have had some experience of local government administration will know that there is great variation between the standards of relief granted in some areas and those granted in other parts of the country. Indeed, we are not yet in a position to know what will be the difference in the treatment meted out to a recipient of unemployment allowance and that meted out to a recipient of public assistance. If the local authority is more generous in its treatment of the poor than is the Unemployment Assistance Board, there will be a natural tendency on the part of men to get themselves certified as sick; and after men have been idle for from six months to a year—and they must be idle for that time before coming under Part II of the Bill at all—it will be pretty easy for large numbers of people to get themselves certified as sick.
What therefore is the period during which a man has to be sick before he is transferred to the local rates? If the standards of a local authority tare higher than the standard of the Unemployment Assistance Board, there will be a tendency for continual drifts to take place from the board on to the local rates. If that happens, the local authority will
either have to carry the additional charge or to protect itself against that influx and reduce its own standard of treatment of the poor in order to make it less advantageous to go on the rates. The local authorities, therefore, are profoundly interested in the rules that are to be made here, because those rules affect most intimately the frontier lines between unemployment assistance and local authority assistance. Many of us are under the impression that before this Bill has been in operation many months such anarchy will exist in the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the local authorities that an amending Bill will soon be necessary, to put it right.
Here is a very vital question, because the whole difficulty is that one has to attempt to visualise the Bill in practice. We do not know what the board is going to do, but we know that it will be actuated by a natural desire to protect its own revenues and funds. It will not carry more people than it can avoid carrying, and so it seems to me that these rules will have to be most meticulously examined, not only in order to protect the interests of the local authorities, but in order to prevent an administrative condition being established which might have the effect of lowering the standards of relief for the poor all over Great Britain. I think hon. Members will appreciate that that is a point of considerable substance.
If I may revert to Clause 37, while avoiding the more contentious point made earlier, but which I still hold in reserve, because I do not agree that it is cleared up, the Clause states:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act an allowance may be granted thereunder to any person to whom this Part of this Act applies, if he proves in accordance with rules made under this Part of this Act—

(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner and has made application for an allowance in the prescribed manner."

I want to know what that reference to registration "for employment in the prescribed manner" means. Hon. Members on all sides spent a long time on Part I of the Bill in attempting to protect unemployed men against a recurrence of the conditions established under the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition. What guarantees have we that, with respect
to these 1,000,000 men under Part II, the board will not lay down conditions for seeking employment that will give rise to all the viciousness of the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition? I do not find in the Bill any regulations which make reference to this, and in the absence of regulations, the assumption is that rules apply.

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the exact words here. The rules under Sub-section (1) of Clause 51, which is the point that we have reached, are:
rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular…with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this Act.

Mr. BEVAN: But the words "this Part of this Act" are the governing condition, and I would assume that where it is not laid down that powers are to be obtained by regulation, the only other way in which powers can be obtained is by rule or by administrative act. I would assume that so important a matter as determining whether an applicant is really idle and unable to find employment would be made the subject-matter of rule and not of regulation. I would submit consequently—and I think I am entitled to argue here a point of the gravest possible substance—that hon. Members were perfectly prepared to spend all the time of this Committee for a whole evening and to make the Minister bring in a manuscript Amendment to protect the recipients of unemployment insurance benefit from being tyrannised by the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition, but that they do not reassert the same condition with regard to these 1,000,000 men under Part II.
I would ask hon. Members on all sides not to be hypocritical. When we had a Bill before us that we could amend Clause by Clause, we were able to bring hon. Members face to face with all that is involved in not-genuinely-seeking-work, but because under Part II of the Bill you convey the same power in general language, because the powers are not defined, because you can hide from it, because you can conceal yourselves under the Unemployment Assistance Board, because we cannot bring you face to face with it on the Floor of the House, you
pass through these powers in a most frivolous way and hand these 1,000,000 poor helpless creatures over to an Unemployment Assistance Board which must satisfy itself, whose duty it is to satisfy itself, that an applicant for allowance is genuinely a person who cannot find work; and in order to satisfy itself that he is such a person, it must impose upon him all the conditions that we objected to under the not-genuinely-seeking-work provision. I, therefore, submit that we are entitled to argue on this Amendment that the Committee should demand that rules of that kind, dealing with men's means of finding employment, should be brought before this House for consideration in order that Members might be protected from the circumstances that I have described. I have said more than once during the Committee stage that this Bill is going to dig the grave of this Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It has done it already.

Mr. BEVAN: It has dug the grave of many councillors in the country, and it will dig the grave of the Government as well. We have attempted in the Committee stage on Part I of the Bill to protect the Government, in spite of themselves, against their own mistakes. We shall have no chance of protecting the board. We have been able to protect the Government from their follies in Part I because they were clear. We were able to protect the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor-General who were uncertain about the meaning of the Clause to which they had to propose a manuscript Amendment, but the Government are depriving the competent House of Commons—more competent in this matter than in any other subject that can be brought before it—of the opportunity of protecting them from their blunders. We can do it in Part I, but we cannot do it under Part II, because the powers are general and ambiguous, and are not brought before us in the proper way.
I do not intend to labour that point because, if I did so, I would merely have to repeat the arguments which were used with regard to the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition. If hon. Members will call to mind the circumstances existing in the Employment Exchanges of this land between 1927 and 1930, they will have some idea of what might happen in
regard to the 1,000,000 men under Part II of this scheme. Last Thursday we were discussing in a well-filled House the conditions existing in the distressed areas of Great Britain. Everybody was moved to sympathy by the speeches which were made and by the descriptions of the conditions that prevail. The Government are giving the board power, and we cannot in an way control it. They are giving the board the power that the Employment Exchanges have had for six years, to drive and torment people in the mining and textile villages to look for employers who are not there. I warn the Committee that if it parts with these powers in this way, they may try to forget it now, but their constituents will make them remember it when the election comes.

The CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the hon. Member to help me here, because I am not quite clear about it. He said he was not going to labour the point further. I have to deal with the question whether I can allow anyone else to answer it, and in order that I may decide that, I must ask the hon. Member to show me, if he can, in Part II of this Bill any reference to the method of deciding whether a man is registered for employment in the prescribed manner. My impression at the moment is that the prescribed manner comes in earlier legislation, and is not dealt with in this Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: We have no information at all that the prescribed manner is the manner laid down in Part I. That is not stated. Part II stands by itself.

The CHAIRMAN: I want the hon. Member to show me where it is prescribed in Part II. I do not think he can do so.

Mr. BEVAN: It is precisely because it is not prescribed that I am claiming the right to prove that it is there.

The CHAIRMAN: I must rule against the hon. Member. If it is not prescribed in this Part of the Bill, it is not a matter that will be affected by these rules.

Mr. BEVAN: I ask the Minister to help me. Will it not be the obligation of the Unemployment Assistance Board, through its officers, to determine whether a man is, in fact, unable to obtain employment? Is it not laid down that he must be an able-bodied person unable to
obtain employment before he can be an applicant for an allowance?

The CHAIRMAN: Where?

Mr. BEVAN: In Clause 35—
that he is capable of and available for work.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not apply here at all.

Mr. BEVAN: Then what is the point of registering for employment in the prescribed manner? Will the Parliamentary Secretary help you in the matter and say what in his view is the prescribed manner?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to assist the hon. Member, but I do not want assistance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It has been clearly laid down by the Solicitor-General that rules are to be made. Those rules may not cover the actual conditions in regard to not-genuinely-seeking work, but they may cover the actual issue of forms and questions by officials with regard to a man's need and the desirability of his receiving an allowance. The point is that while the not-genuinely-seeking work condition may not arise, the applicant may receive a form asking him certain questions. The rules govern the questions that will be asked, and must therefore govern the following procedure which will determine whether the applicant should have an allowance or not. The point I tried to make in my speech was that while I admit that your Ruling is correct, these preliminaries and the rules governing them are tremendously important, and, by implication, they govern all the things that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is raising.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that, technically, the hon. Gentleman's point seems to be right, but I am afraid it will not allow the discussion to be widened so that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can be answered, because it is clear that the more substantial questions of principle are to be dealt with under regulations, which are distinct from rules. Therefore, the argument as to what are to be the rules should be a very limited one indeed.

Mr. BEVAN: It is my contention, that where it is intended to convey power to
the board, it is conveyed in two ways—either by regulation or by rule.

Mr. DENMAN: Or by Statute.

Mr. BEVAN: Quite right, but we are at the moment making the Statute. If regulations are not referred to, and if the statutory obligations are not imposed directly, I am entitled to assume that the power will be exercised by rule. Subsection (3) of Clause 35 makes that clear:
Any question whether a person is or is not a person to whom this Part of this Act applies shall be decided by officers of the board…
Then it deals with the right of appeal. It imposes a duty upon the officer of the board who will be governed by rules sent to him from the board itself, because the officer must act under instructions and rules. The board will send to its officers rules under which they have to decide whether a man becomes a legitimate applicant for an allowance. If one of the conditions is that he is capable of and available for work, and that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner—and the prescribed manner is not the manner laid down in Part I, but the manner laid down by the board—I am entitled to argue that under a combination of power conferred in that way the Unemployment Assistance Board can compel an applicant for an allowance to go through the treadmill of the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has spent a considerable time trying to convince me that my Ruling is wrong. He has failed to do so, and I must ask him to follow my Ruling now.

Mr. BEVAN: I had left the point, and I wanted to pass to another when you intervened. I would only urge hon. Members to store this up in their memories. I want to go on to the question of training centres because here we have a point which is of the greatest possible substance. There was an argument in Committee, in which the Solicitor-General took part, as to whether the schemes of work had to be submitted to the House or whether the board had the right to make the detailed regulations. Clause 38 (2) says:
In order that an applicant for an allowance may be given an opportunity of becoming fit for entry into or return to regular employment, any such determination
may, subject to and in accordance with rules made in that behalf under this Part of this Act, grant an allowance for the maintenance of the applicant….
It goes on to discuss the conditions of training. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether the board ought to have the power to send men to training camps without any sanction from the men or the specific permission of this House. That Clause deals specifically with the maintenance of the applicant's dependants when the applicant is at the camp. The applicant, indeed, can be treated in any manner that the board wishes as laid down by rules. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Under this Clause we are giving power to the Unemployment Assistance Board to make, by rule, payments to the dependants of an applicant who may be sent to a training centre in any such manner as the rules may prescribe. Indeed, later on it lays down that rules are to be made by the board to determine who is to be sent to the training camps. Under Clause 39 (1):
No application for an allowance shall be dealt with under this section unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, to the question whether the applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities of employment or training.…
The Ruling you gave just now, Sir Dennis, was to the effect that you could not see in any part of the Bill where the Unemployment Assistance Board could lay down the conditions under which a man had to claim an allowance.

The CHAIRMAN: That was not my Ruling.

Mr. BEVAN: Here we have it mentioned again specifically. It states specifically that the board can decide by rule whether the applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities of employment or training. If an applicant refuses to permit himself to be trained—and the conditions of training are to be determined by rule, not by regulation—he can be deprived of an allowance. He can be made a case of special difficulty by rule and not by regulation. I know that in the consideration of Part II it is very difficult to get across to Members of the Committee what may be involved under these powers, but hon. Members ought to consider whether it should be possible for a board, uncontrolled and unrestricted, to decide the circumstances in which a
British subject is to lose control over his own body, over the disposal of his own person. That is what is involved here. He has no recourse to an appeal, not even the right of having the conditions discussed by Parliament beforehand, not even the right to know what the law is.

The CHAIRMAN: May I call the hon. Member's attention to the Sub-section to which he refers. He says that there is no appeal. If he reads the last words of Clause 39, Sub-section (1), he will find it stated there that these matters are to be determined by the officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board or, on appeal, by the appeal tribunal. What I want to call the hon. Member's attention to is that, as far as I can see from a very careful study of the Bill, these rules apply only to matters of procedure, and there is no question of principle whatever which is affected by, or could be affected by, these rules.

Mr. BEVAN: I have always tried to treat the Chair with the very greatest respect, but I would like to point out that the line which you are now taking, Sir Dennis, is a line which, I should say, with the very greatest respect, should properly come from the defenders of the Bill, and should not emanate from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to take up that position. It is the business of the occupant of the Chair to conduct the Debate according to the best of his ability, and these are matters to be decided by the Chair—not by the Government Bench, and certainly not by any other hon. Member.

Mr. BEVAN: Will you do me the favour of telling me what these rules are?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I must leave the hon. Member to deal with that.

Mr. BEVAN: I am attempting so to do. I am attempting to show to the Committee, and I contend that it is substantiated by the reading of the Clause½

The CHAIRMAN: It has come to this, that the hon. Member is insisting on arguing against my Ruling. I am afraid I must warn him, I think this is the third time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, I think this is the third time—and I must ask him to accept my Ruling.

Mr. BEVAN: But I am entitled to ask you under what Clause you are making this Ruling, because I have referred you specifically to Clause 39, and its heading, "Method of dealing with cases of special difficulty." Although it is perfectly true that a man who is put into that category has the right of appeal, I am pointing out that he only has a right of appeal under rules made by the Board. That is my case. The appeal has nothing to do with the case I am making. The case I am making is that the question of how a man is to he made into a case of special difficulty will be determined by rule.

The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member will follow my Ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. LAWSON: One would naturally desire to respect your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I would point out that the wording is
may make rules for carrying this part of this Act into effect.
That is very general, and while you, naturally, have to guide the Debate, I think it is due to the Committee that we should have an interpretation from the Minister as to just how far that carries us, because, as I have said, that is a very general power.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right, it is very general, but, however general it is, it is quite certain that these rules cannot decide matters which are decided by the Bill by some other means, namely, by an express provision in the Bill itself, or by means of regulations, or some other method other than rules, as provided for by the Bill.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: May I put this point? We are now dealing with rules that may be made under Clauses 37 to 42, under which the Unemployment Assistance Board are given general powers, and under this particular Clause, we are now discussing there are rules and regulations, and therefore I should have thought that in submitting, as we do, that these should be approved by Parliament instead of being laid before Parliament, it would be competent for hon. Members to try to show the implications of the powers to be given under the earlier Clauses of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that is inconsistent with the Ruling I have given.

Mr. COVE: Let us have the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: I must inform the hon. Member that it is my opinion which the Committee have to follow, and not the Minister's. I have already tried, to the best of my ability, to show that while these rules apply, no doubt, so far as procedure is concerned, to everything in this part of the Bill, my point is that they do not refer to those matters of principle which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) ventured on one or two occasions to discuss—matters of principle which are settled otherwise than by these rules, it may be by regulations or it may be, in other cases, by express statutory enactments in earlier legislation referred to and incorporated in this Bill. That is the whole extent of my Ruling, and I must adhere to it.

Mr. BEVAN: I was about to bring my remarks to a close, because I do not wish to prevent the Treasury Bench from fulfilling their obligation to reply. We on this side of the Committee shall reserve the right of examining most meticulously what they say the rules cover, because procedure under Part II is a very vital part of the Bill, seeing that many of the powers conferred upon the Unemployment Assistance Board are powers to regulate procedure and that these rules do, in fact, confer upon the board very wide powers. I sit down to give the Solicitor-General or the Minister the opportunity of pointing out to us the distinction between rules and regulations—but not rules and regulations in the abstract: we know the distinction in the abstract, and we want the distinction in relation to specific parts of this Bill.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I shall not intervene for very long between the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and the answer he desires and deserves. I regret that his speech was produced in so many fragments that it lost something of that forcefulness which we, expect from him. He will also, perhaps, allow me to suggest that in his enthusiasm he saw very much more danger and peril in this Clause than really exist.

Mr. BEVAN: Which Clause?

Mr. DENMAN: The Clause under discussion. The Amendment will not make
an appreciable difference in any vital matter. I agree with him entirely that were there any power to reimpose a not-genuinely-seeking-work test, the Bill as it stands would be most unsatisfactory, but I am sure the Solicitor-General will assert that there is no power for the Unemployment Assistance Board to make rules which would have any such effect. I wish to remind the Committee of the comedy of the position in which we find ourselves. Those who have sufficiently long political memories will recollect that Socialism is identified—or was in pre-War days—with a very considerable increase in bureaucratic control. It was, indeed, the normal charge against a Socialist that he would impose on the country an undue loss of liberty.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. We have now got a dissertation on the bureaucratic methods of Socialism. Should we be in order on this Amendment to say in reply that Socialism represents nothing of the sort? The hon. Member may have joined the Socialist party because of those things. We know what he has done since.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the reference was out of order, and a reply equally short would not be out of order. Any longer argument on the subject or any longer reply would be out of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only wanted to safeguard my rights in that respect.

Mr. DENMAN: The whole point of the Amendment is that excessive power is vested in a bureaucratic authority. The Amendment desires to reserve more power to the House of Commons. That is the precise issue with which I wish to deal for a few minutes. In old days it was customary among Socialists to welcome increased bureaucratic authority, and the paradoxical situation now is that hon. Members opposite are trying to impose upon the House of Commons such a detailed control of particulars as would mean the downfall of this House as an efficient assembly. It is perfectly clear in these days that we are hopelessly overburdened with detail. We have before us a Session of great congestion, and even with time tables we shall find that we cannot adequately discuss the matters which will come before us. We shall be very lucky if we get 80 per cent. of the business completed. The Opposition
desire that the rules on relatively minor points should be brought before this House for approval.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman has conducted his argument so far entirely in the abstract. Would he be good enough to point out to us to which Clause and under what powers these rules apply?

Mr. DENMAN: I am speaking in general terms. The rules are, in the main, procedure rules. I agree that in certain conditions they are of greater importance than that, but I was coming to a rather different point. We have seen a steady encroachment of bureaucratic authority in the making of rules which have legislative effect. That we all know, and that, I believe, to be necessary. This is one more example of that process. I deplore it in some measure, but there seems no escape from it unless we adopt some new system of devolution which it would be out of place at this moment to attempt to discuss. As long as we have our current machinery, it seems that we shall be compelled in Act after Act to give Ministers these powers to make or confirm rules and regulations, and on those rules we shall less and less have that amount of debate which I believe to be necessary. The evil alternatives that we have to face are such that I submit that the time ought to be brought close at hand when we shall be able by some devolution system to secure both ends, and a proper ultimate control in this House in order to avoid this increase of bureaucratic control over matters which are, in many respects, of interest to masses of the people.

6.48 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask the Minister one or two questions? Sub-section (1) says:
The Unemployment Assistance Board may make rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this Act to he made under this Part of this Act (except rules authorised to be made under the last foregoing section), but no rules made by the board shall have effect until confirmed by the Minister, and any such rules shall, when confirmed, be laid before Parliament.
Would the Minister explain exactly what is the difference between rules and
regulations? Clause 38 (3) contains these words:
Where an applicant for an allowance is dependent on or ordinarily supported by another member of the household who is also an applicant for an allowance, any determination granting an allowance to the first mentioned applicant may, subject to and in accordance with rules made in that behalf under this Part of this Act, determine that the allowance granted to him shall be issued wholly or in part to the second mentioned applicant.
There it seems to concern a regulation instead of a rule. I would like the Solicitor-General to explain where lies the difference between a regulation and a rule. There is another point about which I would like to ask while I am on my feet, and that is whether rules as laid down in Clause 51 (1) are amendable by the Committee? It states quite clearly in that Sub-section that the rules shall not be effective until they are confirmed by Parliament. Has a Minister power to alter the rules, or has he merely to accept them as a whole and, when they are confirmed, lay them before Parliament? I should also like to ask whether the rules that are to be laid down by the board are to control regulations? If they are general rules controlling all the regulations, it is rather important that this House should have some say in the making of the rules.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I rise only to answer in a very few words the points which have been made in the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I am afraid that he did not console me at all. He told us that not only had we to submit to bureaucratic control under this Clause, but that this is the beginning of a succession of Measures under which this House is to be deprived of its control. I quite agree with the main difficulties which he has put before us in regard to the work of Parliament, and I cannot, of course, follow, any more than he could, his suggestion about devolution. We have to take the present Constitution as we find it. If we are to devolve work away from Parliament we have to consider very carefully what kind of work we devolve. This kind of work, dealing with matters of intimate concern in the lives of the people is not work which ought to be taken away, because' that would be shirking our difficulties.
The hon. Member made what seemed to me a gratuitous assumption in regard to matters of minor importance. Why should he assume that matters which we are to debate, though they be matters of procedure, are matters of minor importance? These matters are not unlike those concerned with the administration of justice in the Law Courts. They affect people's lives just as the Law Courts may affect their liberties. Matters of procedure with regard to justice may be of the most enormous importance. They may amount, if they are done wrong, to a denial of justice, and this House should keep a very tight hold over matters of that kind. If the rules are to concern minor matters, as they may in some cases, I cannot see that the Amendment is likely to add in any way to the congestion of the time of Parliament. When a matter of minor importance, which has already been dealt with by the board and has been confirmed by the Minister comes for approval before this House, the House would confirm it without any long Debate, and there would not be any difficulty about it. We have to guard against matters of great importance not being brought before this House and our having no power to deal with them. I would much rather take the risk of a little further congestion of the time of the House than I would take the corresponding but far greater risk of matters of the gravest moment in the lives of the people being removed from our effective control.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) did not seem to make clear to the Committee what the effect of the Amendment would be. As I understand the Bill, it provides that certain rules shall be laid before Parliament; the Amendment seeks to provide that those rules shall be approved by Parliament. Both hon. Members seemed to suggest that, if the Amendment were carried, opportunity would be afforded to the House to amend those rules from time to time. I understand that not to be the position. If the Amendment were carried, the only difference would be that further opportunity for Debate would be provided. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that if,
every time some regulation on procedure required to be changed or laid down, we were to have a Debate, it would lead to the most intolerable waste of time.
The proper method in dealing with a complicated matter of that kind is for the House to do what it has been endeavouring to do, to lay down Clause by Clause the principles that shall be followed. If any hon. Member objects to any of those principles, the time to raise that objection is when the Clause is under discussion. The principles having been decided, I cannot see that any case is made out for bringing before this House on other occasions all the detailed matters of procedure which are bound constantly to arise as the Bill comes into operation. I cannot join with the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in his delightful assumption that when those matters come up the House will quickly pass them, with only a short discussion. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will resist the Amendment, and we shall support him.

6.56 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me start with what is common ground. It is common ground that Part II deals with a very important subject matter and that the people who are to be dealt with under Part II deserve the consideration and the sympathy of this House, certainly as much, and I should say more than, those to whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred as "more fortunate sections of the community." That is the common ground. No one disputes the importance of the subject matter with one aspect of which this Amendment deals. I will make a general observation which, I hope, will be germane to what the Committee have to consider. There are two courses of attack attractive to those who sit upon the opposite benches. One is the attack which we have heard in connection with the Bill, that this House does not have enough time properly to discuss matters with which it should deal. There is another attack which we heard this afternoon when it was proposed to delegate to some outside body certain matters of detail. There is the attack which we have heard that the House should be jealous of its privileges, and should not give up its right over detail in matters of such importance. Those arguments are to some extent inconsistent. If we are to have
adequate time to discuss really important matters of principle, we must, as was recommended by the Committee on Ministers' Powers last year, delegate duties which would otherwise be performed wholly or partly by this House.

Mr. D. FOOT: Did not that Committee ask that there should be the most stringent safeguards against a misuse of the powers that were delegated?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The safeguards to which that Committee attached most importance do, as I shall show in a minute, apply to the rules made under this Bill. That is a point which has not been made in the course of the discussion. The rules are matters which we think should be delegated under the provisions made by the Bill, subject to the safeguards which the Bill provides. The first and most important safeguard is that these rules will come under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which applies to rules made by Government Departments and other such bodies and will apply to the rules made by the Unemployment Assistance Board. Under that Act there is, first of all, 40 days' notice in the "London Gazette" that there is a proposal either to make or to amend rules; during that period of 40 days any public body may obtain copies of the draft rules on payment of a certain price, and any representations made by a public body which has locus standi in the matter have to be considered by the rule-making body, as of course they would be in all cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, he might consider this as well. What happens to the rules in the meantime, if there is an emergency and the Rules Committee is not in operation?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. If you have an emergency there is a power. In the ordinary case nothing happens until the end of 40 days, but if there is an emergency there is a power—of which, I think, nobody would dispute the reasonableness—to make an emergency rule which can come into force at once, but which requires confirmation at the end, I think, of the same period of 40 days just as if it were an original rule. One starts, therefore, with the first safeguard, one of great importance, that
notice will have to be given of any rules proposed under this Bill; there will be the 40 days during which people can find out what they are, and representations can be made by public bodies or Members of Parliament to the Minister, and by all the other formal and informal ways in which people can criticise and bring points forward in matters of this kind.

Mr. DENMAN: Does that provision in the old Act override the quite express words in the Clause we are now considering, that no rules made by the board shall have effect until they are confirmed by the Minister?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not the Government's intention, and I am instructed that it is not so. There is no doubt at all that rules to be made under this Act will be subject to the safeguards and the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893. If there is any doubt, I will certainly have it looked into, but, as I understand it, the board will be for this purpose in the same position as any other rule-making body.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Does not the Minister himself make the rules under the Act?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the general construction of that Act. It starts off:
1.—(1) At least 40 days before making any statutory rules to which this section applies…
The question is whether a rule is or is not a statutory rule to which this Clause applies when it is made by a Minister, or by a body such as the Rules Committee, or some other body. If there is any doubt, I will certainly have it attended to, but the Committee can rest assured that that is the intention, and if it has not been effected it will be effected: that rules made by this board shall be subject to the safeguard of the Rules Publication Act.
Another safeguard to which the Committee will, I think, attach equal, and, perhaps, even greater importance, is that the rules as proposed by the board have to be approved and confirmed by the Minister. The Minister has his ordinary responsibility to this House. We are not handing over to some irresponsible junta the power of making rules upon which no
Minister of the Crown can be questioned or criticised in this House. These rules will come for 40 days under the bold and challenging eye of the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, who will have during that time the right to make any criticisms that can be made of Ministers—which are many in this House—and say, "You have provisionally approved or confirmed rules which you should not have done." We feel that these are two very important safeguards, the safeguard as to time, and the safeguard by which the representation of any public body must be considered by a Minister responsible to this House when he is making up his mind on the action to be taken with regard to the rules.
We feel that this is a proper matter in which the framing and the drawing up of rules should be done by the Unemployment Assistance Board. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred very relevantly to Section 34, and read the words which stated for what this board is set up and what it has to do:
(2) The functions of the board shall be the assistance of persons to whom this Part of this Act applies who are in need of work and the promotion of their welfare…
The words are familiar. That is the board, and that is what this House will set it up to do. Hon. Members will approach the issue raised by this Amendment in the wrong spirit if they believe with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that the board may consist of men who have no experience and no sympathy; or with the hon. Member for Gorbals, that a board set up for those duties may make rules which will take away a man's real rights. I suggest to the Committee that that is not the right frame of mind or the right point of view from which to approach the power which this Bill confers on the board in giving it the duty of making rules in the matters in which rules fall to be made under the Bill as it now stands.
I was asked a question as to the difference between the rules and the regulations under this Bill. It is, I think, a matter of terminology. I will start with the regulations dealt with by Sections 2, 3 and 4—which it is out of order to discuss, according to your ruling on this Amendment, Sir Dennis, but which I desire to mention merely for the purpose of answering the question.
What are called regulations are only the regulations which will be made under Clause 37 (3) as to needs. They are called "regulations" for this reason, and this reason only: that there is a more formal procedure before they can come into operation, namely, that they have to be affirmatively approved by Resolution instead of merely being laid before Parliament. The other matters, which are procedural or administrative matters, fall to be dealt with by rules. I do not think that the Committee would desire me to refer to all the places in this Act where rules are mentioned. Reference has been made to one or two, and I suggest to the Committee that these are very proper matters to be dealt with in the delegative way proposed by the Bill.
There is, for instance, the period of occasional sickness or incapacity which may take a man out of Part II. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a detail."] An hon. Gentleman says that this is a detail, but it is no argument against this treatment of such matters to say that they are important. The question which the Committee has to decide is whether we have proved, not that these are unimportant matters, but that they are matters proper to be dealt with by the board set up by the House, subject to these safeguards. You may say, and in a sense say very truly, that everything in this part of the Bill is important. You may say, for example, that the administration of justice is important. But there are many matters connected with the administration of justice which this House has placed outside its direct administrative control. As all hon. Members know, the Rules framed by the Rules Committee, are laid before the House, do not require an affirmative Resolution and cannot be amended.

Mr. T. SMITH: That is no parallel.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It was suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals, and at least one other speaker, that these were matters of vital importance to the liberty of the subject and the rights of the people; but matters involving administrative and procedural detail have been put by this House in the hands of a body which this House has not power to control.
Another question concerns the provision with regard to Rules in Clause 37 (1). When the point of Order was made I said
—and I will repeat it with a little more emphasis now—that if the Committee will read that Clause, it will be quite clear that the Rules under Sub-section (1) deal only with the method of proof. If I may respectfully associate myself with what you, Sir Dennis, laid down as a point of Order, but put it not as a point of Order but as the plain effect of what the words mean—the intention of this part of the Act—there is no kind of possibility of anything connected with or related to a test of genuinely-seeking-work being dealt with in the Rules. They are to decide the method of proof either in regard to (a) the man being registered in employment in a prescribed manner, or (b) that he
has no work or only such part-time or intermittent work as not to enable him to earn sufficient for his needs.
There is, in my submission, no possible way in which the words could be stretched to mean what is suggested by the hon. Member. As you, Sir, ruled that it was out of order, I will merely pass on to deal with the intentions of the Government in this matter.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to extend his statement to a general one that under Part II of this Bill the board cannot, by rule, establish a set of circumstances corresponding to the not-genuinely-seeking-work?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am certainly not going to make any general statement. We are going through the Bill Clause by Clause, and, if the hon. Member thinks he can find anywhere in it anything which would allow that to be done by rule, no doubt he will do so, as he has the opportunity. He has had a reasonable time, and apparently cannot find anything of the kind, and I cannot find anything of the kind either. I was asked whether the rules can be altered by the Minister. I think I am right in saying that there is no express provision as to that, but I feel that in this matter the board and the Minister will work in close co-operation, and that there will not be the slightest difficulty between the one and the other. Having, I think, disposed of the specific questions which were put to me, perhaps I may summarise by saying that we feel that the actual framing of these rules is properly left, as it is by the Bill, in the hands of the board, and that the safeguards for publicity, Parliamentary
criticism, and the proper bringing forward in the House of Commons of any grievances which hon. Members may have with regard to the rules, are completely adequate, and, therefore, we ask the Committee to accept the Clause in this form.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: One finds it very difficult to follow the leadership that there is in this Committee on the Bill. Sitting on this side of the Committee, we see a kaleidoscope. We have had the Prime Minister, we have had the Lord President of the Council, we have had the Minister of Labour, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to-day we have had the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and now we have, I think for the second time, the Solicitor-General. We welcome them all into our midst, but it is a little unfortunate that there is no general officer commanding this Bill. The Bill has been sectionalised. If the Government can make a question primarily a financial question, they bring down the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If they can turn an Amendment of substance into a legal question, the Solicitor-General comes. Although right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are working in shifts, bringing in their relays of Ministers from time to time, spreading the burden, the fact is that this is a very human Bill, and we are dealing now with the rules and regulations which are to be made under the auspices of a new Star Chamber, whose actions, whose rules, regulations and officers will govern the day-to-day life of masses of the people of this country.
The point under discussion now is as to rules to be made with regard to detailed points of procedure—what the Solicitor-General called matters of detail, but what in a later part of his speech he called important matters. These things are very real; they are going to affect, it may be, within the next 12 months, 1,000,000 unemployed persons and their families—perhaps 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people; and it is not much use the Solicitor-General bringing forward a constitutional argument about not having had sufficient time, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, about the necessity for delegating matters of detail. That is purely abstract. The Bill will deal with,
perhaps, a quarter of the population; it will deal with people who are out of work through no fault of their own; it will affect their wives and their families; and those of us who sit on this side of the Committee are not assisted by arguments on the constitutional point which was put by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), about delegating powers.
I have no objection whatever to the House of Commons settling principles and Ministers applying principles, but I do object to the House of Commons accepting a vacuum and letting the Minister do anything he likes with it, which is the position under the Bill. There is all the difference in the world between the term "laid before Parliament" and the term "approved by Parliament." However bad the construction of the House of Commons may be, approval by Parliament means something definite and specific. "Laid before Parliament" means, perhaps, a discussion which takes place, if it ever does take place, after eleven o'clock, or after midnight, and there is no definite approval by the House of Commons of the rules that have been made. In five Clauses, 37 to 42, are laid down the powers which are to be exercised by the Unemployment Assistance Board. In Clause 51, powers are given to the board to apply the terms and conditions under which, in accordance with Clauses 37 to 42, assistance is to be given to people who are unemployed but are outside the terms of statutory unemployment insurance benefit.
We ought to know from the Government what kind of rules are going to be made. We ought to know, seeing that we are dealing with people who are in their present position through no fault of their own, exactly how the Government propose to deal with them. They might have set out a standard, a scale of relief; they might have set out the principles on which they are going to work. It was not much use the Solicitor-General reading the words of Clause 34, because those words really mean nothing. Had the Government set out the principles on which they were going to act, we on this side of the Committee might, accepting the principles, have agreed that Ministers might apply them; but what we are being asked to do now is really
to buy a pig in a poke—we are being asked to hand over, without any kind of Parliamentary control, the interests of very large numbers of people. We are not being asked to permit the Government to apply principles in detail; we are being asked to give to the Government a blank cheque to deal just as they like with the unemployed who are outside unemployment insurance; and, for my part, I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that the Government will do these things reasonably.
Whenever any question of finance has been raised, it has not been left to the human figure of the Minister of Labour; they have sent down the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are dealing to-day with a very vital point in the Bill, but it is not the Minister of Labour, whose human interests we know are real, who replies; they send down the Solicitor-General to argue about the difference between rules and regulations. Indeed, it looks to me as though the Minister is being pressed a little aside, and that considerations other than human considerations are prevailing. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister of Labour spoke very sincerely about his interest in the unemployed. I accept that. I know that, as the Minister of the Crown charged with that problem, it is a question that must be in the forefront of his mind. But, unfortunately, after the very human speech which he made on the Second Reading, he has been pushed into the background, and all kinds of legal and financial quibbles are allowed to take place.
Our reason for pressing this Amendment is that we desire to face the Government with what, to us, is the vital principle of the Bill: Is the House of Commons to determine the broad general conditions on which the poor, unemployed persons outside insurance are to receive assistance, or are those conditions to be left to the uncontrolled discretion of a Member of the Government? While we do not wish to hamper the House with details as to regulations we prefer that the House should make itself responsible for the fortunes of the unemployed, rather than that they should be left to la Bill, however good it may be, which, once on the Statute Book, will put a body of unrepresentative and uncontrolled persons in supreme control over the lives of the
unemployed; and I hope that numbers of Members of the Committee will be prepared to support us.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want, Sir Dennis, to give you concern by clausing you to think that I am going to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) on the subject of Socialism. I know that his relations with the Prime Minister are most cordial, and that he can always tell us how Socialism stands. Everyone knows that they are deep thinkers—so deep that we very seldom see the results of their thinking. But I will leave them there; I am not going to follow the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) raised a question which, whether the Solicitor-General likes it or not, is a question of some substance, namely, the question of the not-genuinely-seeking-work provision, and whether that can be brought in again by the making of these Rules. I submit that the most important point of all is as to the procedure. If I may be allowed to refer to Part I of the Bill, I would point out that under Part I persons have a certain procedure to go through, and therefore, to that extent they are in a similar position to those who come under Part II; but the difference between Part I and Part II is that generally speaking the procedure under Part I will be laid down by the Act, but the procedure under Part II will not be laid down by the Act. In making a claim for benefit under Part II a person has to prove, among other things, that he is a deserving person to get benefit. The procedure can determine the type of proof that he can adduce. It can practically take away his rights, because it can so circumscribe him that it will be impossible for him to use his elementary right of proof.
The analogy of the law courts is not a good one. In a public court he can show that he has not got the rules of procedure governing him in his power. Here it is different. He goes before a small private body where he cannot contest the rules of procedure. He can say before a could that he has not got his rights under the rules of procedure. Under this Bill he cannot. Under law court procedure his rights are safeguarded. Under this Bill he has nothing. He can be jerrymandered out of his rights in a hundred
and one ways. I look upon the rules of procedure in Unemployment Insurance as being much more important than the actual regulations. Day to day practice in the courts gives more knowledge of what is important and what is unimportant than any amount of theorising. Under this Bill the importance of procedure cannot be over-rated. It will determine how the interview between the official and the man is to take place, the kind of questions to be put and whether the man is to be given a summary of the interview that took place. It is important to know the body determining the procedure and making the rules.
It might make for public confidence if we knew the type of board that we are going to deal with. You may elect a board of capable people who will carry confidence but, on the other hand, you may have a board which this House would not like to trust with very much power, and I am not prepared to hand over to an unknown board the making of procedure rules. We are going to discuss a Betting Bill that may occupy weeks of time. If we were wise, we should devote time to the discussion of these procedure rules rather than to betting. These are the things that people are thinking about. They are matters that are moving men and women, and the House of Commons, if it is wise, will devote its time to things that are moving the mass of the people, and this is one of them.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: This Amendment raises a question of vital importance. There is a vast feeling of uneasiness outside the House, not only as to what is contained in the Bill but as to the effects of the procedure under it. The great mass of our people have confidence in this House to a far greater extent than in any outside body. If there ever was a case in which the rules should be approved by this House, it is this. It is sometimes suggested that, if the rules are laid before Parliament, the man in the street, who does not understand procedure here, may look upon them as having received the approval of Parliament. In an important Bill like this the House should be jealous of its right to amend these rules and to bring them into conformity with the general feeling in the House. I believe there is in all
quarters a desire to better the condition of the unemployed. A tremendous amount of sympathy has been evoked, but it appears to me that, once the Bill is through, the Government are hoping that the responsibility will be borne by the Unemployment Assistance Board and that they will be able to say, "Thank goodness, we shall no longer be bothered with questions about unemployment benefit and transitional payment." They will be able to say that these matters are out of their control altogether. They will be thinking to themselves that they will no longer be called upon to answer awkward questions.
I am satisfied that, whatever is done eventually, you are not going to be rid of the problem of unemployment simply because of the Unemployment Assistance Board. If the Clause goes through as drafted, the unemployed man will feel that he is not to be treated as a human person at all, but simply as a number on a form, something immaterial, something with no substance and no shape. We cannot divorce the problem of unemployment from the human element. If the effect of the procedure and rules is in the long run that the unemployed man will be treated in a more inhuman fashion, there will be an agitation outside the House against the Bill and those responsible for it. We cannot be too careful in what we are doing in respect of this Clause. We are making a leap in the dark. Anyone who votes for the Clause as it stands will be committing his opinions and his sentiments to the unknown. He will know nothing at all about what is to be done.
It is all very well for the Solicitor-General to talk about safeguards. The safeguards are not sufficient for the unemployed man. We are told that these powers are only semi-delegated, but I am certain that they go far beyond that designation. The Unemployment Assistance Board will practically have the whole of the powers. Although the Minister may lay the rules before the House, I cannot see in what circumstances any alterations of the rules of procedure can be made. The whole of the proceduce under Part II of the Bill is to be governed by the rules made under Clause 51. I cannot emphasise too strongly the fact that under the method of procedure the whole framework of
what is to be done for the unemployed under Part II of the Bill is to be settled in such a way that Members of the House of Commons will have no voice whatever. I want the Government to realise that the men who have been out of employment for a year or more and are likely to continue to be unemployed will come under Part II of the Bill, and we have no guarantee that they will be dealt with even in the way they have been dealt with up to now. Even now there have been complaints, many of which have been justified, but under this Clause and the method of procedure their position is likely to get considerably worse.
I hope, therefore, that those Members of the Committee who are as anxious as ourselves to show a sympathetic attitude towards the unfortunate unemployed will not treat this Amendment lightly. I trust that they will be prepared to go into the Lobby with us, because they will be asked what action they took on hehalf of the unemployed in their particular area in order to safeguard the interests of those men and to give them a square deal and an opportunity of putting their side of the case in the best possible way. I appeal to the Committee to support the Amendment.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I have often endeavoured to ascertain what is at the back of the mind of the Government in bringing this Bill before the House of Commons at all, and I have concluded that the only specific reason, apart from depriving the unemployed of a substantial sum of money, is that they desire to disfranchise the persons who are in receipt of transitional payment. This Clause is really the mechanism of the Bill. There can be no doubt that by its procedure it will partially deprive a million people and their dependants of a certain amount of money of which they are in receipt. It is really the most important Clause in Part II if not in the whole of the Bill. We cannot be satisfied with the reply of the Solicitor-General. His argument was entirely in the abstract. He could not have possibly visualised the unemployed person in receipt of transitional payment, whose case is now investigated by the investigation officer, having his case brought before the board. That is really what we have to endeavour to do.
It is impossible to discuss this thing adequately merely by talking in the abstract about certain Acts of Parliament which will govern the position, how the rules are to be made, how power is to be given, and how all this is to be made known. We know how these people are being treated to-day, that the public assistance committees will be deprived of their rights, and that in substitution we shall have a board which will deal with these people in accordance with certain rules and regulations. The procedure upon which they will meet the applications of these people is to be determined, and we say that, in accordance with this Amendment, Parliament should not divorce itself of certain rights it now possesses of caring for the interests of at least a million inhabitants of this country.
We have had no answer from the Minister, or from any person putting forward the claims of the Government, to the case presented by the Mover of the Amendment, and we have certainly had no reply to the statements which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have had much discussion particularly from the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) about Parliament and bureaucracy, and I certainly would not enter into any purely academic argument as to whether Socialism is autocratic or not. It would certainly be out of order and out of place in relation to this matter. We are faced in this Clause with the fact as to whether Parliamentary democracy is to function properly or not, and whether a million inhabitants of the country are to have any right of appeal to Parliament. Parliament should take into consideration this very important matter. These people will be deprived of any right of knowing what is contained in the rules of procedure. They are being deprived of public assistance committees, and they will have no democratic representations in their own district. In the one instance they will have no one to whom to appeal locally, and in the other instance they will be deprived of the aid of their elected representative in Parliament in regard to this matter. The Minister should give a further reply upon this point, as we are entitled to far better consideration than we have so far received.
Parliament ought not to treat the matter lightly but to give adequate consideration to it. Far more interest ought to be shown by the supporters of the Government. I cannot understand their attitude. They no doubt realise that the most important problem confronting the country is that of unemployment, and I can imagine how they would like to wipe their hands of this problem entirely and to divorce Parliament from any discussion of it. They would like to hand over to a board of some kind the solution of a problem which Parliament ought really to solve. Therefore, I can perhaps understand the apathy of the supporters of the Government towards the matter. But they will have to face the electorate on this issue.
The last speaker was right when he said that anyone who is doing any electioneering for local government purposes will find that this is a matter of vital concern to the people. The people ask questions and want to know what is going to happen. You hear people say, "I have been idle for a long time. I have looked everywhere for employment. I have been all over the land and found no opportunity of employment at all. I can now appeal to the public assistance committee in order that my case may be properly reviewed under the investigation officer who has obtained all the particulars and has ascertained all the facts, but now it will not be possible to do anything on that account. The board will have to deal with my case. Am I to be deprived of an appeal and of the opportunity of even presenting my case to you as the elected Member of Parliament in order that you may voice my claims in the House of Commons?" This is what is being said and the sort of questions which we are being asked. It is not a party matter. They are being literally disfranchised.
The workpeople are put into three categories. There are those who are working, there are those who are unemployed and come under the insurance scheme with some credit in the fund upon which they can draw, and there are the unfortunate unemployed people who have been idle for years, as is the case in South Wales, and who are being literally disfranchised without any opportunity whatever of presenting their case to anyone. The board can do just what it likes with their case. They
ought to have the most humane consideration, but they are likely to receive the most inhuman treatment. We beg of the Solicitor-General or of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, or even of the Minister himself to give more adequate consideration to the matter, and I trust that upon that consideration they will accept the Amendment as being the only proper means by which the unemployed in this country can obtain enfranchisement and fair play.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I accept what the Solicitor-General has said and believe that he put his case quite fairly. He did not burke the issue. He stated that the House of Commons were handing over some of their powers, and that some might look upon them as important and some might look upon them indifferently. I accept his statement. We regard it as very important that powers which ought to belong to Parliament should be given to a committee who will make rules which in turn will be submitted to the Minister of Labour. He will sanction them, and they will be put before this House, and we shall have no power to alter them. We have a strong objection to this proposal. On Thursday next I shall be addressing a meeting of unemployed people among whom will be a large number who have been out of work for a long period. Figures were given last week showing that 437,000 persons have been out of work for more than 12 months. Those people should be entitled to unemployment benefit. In the meeting which I am to address there will be a number of those people and they will want to know their position under Part II of this Bill. They will ask me as their representative what power I shall have in the matter if, later on, they do not get fair treatment from the Unemployment Assistance Board. Judging from the discussion to-night and the replies of the Government my answer will have to be, unless the, Committee pass our Amendment,

that when this Act becomes law the Members of the House of Commons will have no further jurisdiction over those 400,000 people, and other who will be added. We ask that these rules should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. We should then have power to say what should be done. We must have some regard to the vast number of people who are looking to us for support. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) argued that many matters have to pass away from this House. If to-night we had to deal with the position of 1,000,000 subscribers to the War Loan and it was proposed to cut down the rates of interest, would the House agree to that matter being delegated to any body outside this House? Would they allow that 1,000,000 people to have their rights taken away in that way? Under the English law it has been a recognised principle that to those most in need the greater protection shall be given. We have always understood that the down and out should be protected, but to-night that is not to be the case, because the power that we have over their destiny is being taken away from us. It is a very serious matter. I do not disguise my position in regard to Part II. I have voted against any part of it being handed over to another body, and on this side of the House we have steadily taken that attitude. This Clause deals with that position more than any other Clause. The rules of procedure will mean the whole control of Part II being taken out of the hands of Parliament. In raising our protest against that intention we feel so deeply about it that we cannot miss an opportunity of making our voices heard and appealing to hon. Members not to allow the Clause to go through without accepting our Amendment and giving some protection for the million people who will come under Part II.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 62.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Blindell, James


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Borodale, Viscount


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bossom, A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boulton, W. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Apsley, Lord
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Remer, John R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burnett, John George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Salt, Edward W.


Christie, James Archibald
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Scone, Lord


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Selley, Harry B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckle, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crooks, J. Smedley
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mabane, William
Spens, William Patrick


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stevenson, James


Dickie, John P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strauss, Edward A.


Doran, Edward
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Eastwood, John Francis
Maitland, Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Martin, Thomas B.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Templeton, William P.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, Sir Richard James
Thompson, Sir Luke


Fielden, Edward Brooklehurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fleming Edward Lascelles
Milne, Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morgan, Robert H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Train, John


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tree, Ronald


Gibson, Charles Granville
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moss, Captain H. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Goff. Sir Park
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gower, Sir Robert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nunn, William
Warrender, Sir Victor A G.


Greene, William P. C.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Weymouth, Viscount


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Petherick. M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Harbord, Arthur
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hartland, George A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Pybus, Sir Percy John



Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cove, William G.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Daggar, George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Banfield, John William
Dobble, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Buchanan, George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Cape, Thomas
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Grundy, Thomas w.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thorne, William James


Harris, Sir Percy
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mainwaring, William Henry
White, Henry Graham


Janner, Barnett
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jenkins, Sir William
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


John, William
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Milner, Major James
Wilmot, John


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, Wilfred
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Kirkwood, David
Parkinson, John Allen
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Leonard, William
Pickering, Ernest H.



Logan, David Gilbert
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


McEntee, Valentine L.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)

8.13 p.m.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 46, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that before any rules are confirmed by the Minister under this Section such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned shall be given an opportunity of considering the rules and of making representations thereon to the Minister.
The rules may concern a, local authority very deeply. For example, Clause 35 (2) provides that:
…rules made under this Part of this Act may provide that a person shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, be deemed to be capable of and available for work notwithstanding such periods of occasional sickness or incapacity as may be specified therein.
I take it that the rules will lay down the length of those periods. The person incapable of work would become chargeable and the rules will lay down in which case the man who has become chargeable is to be taken care of by the Unemployment Assistance Board and in which case by the Public Assistance Authority. The effect of that will be that in one case a man will be a charge on the taxes and in the other case a charge on the rates. I agree that if the Rules of Publication Act, to which the Solicitor-General referred, apply, that will largely meet my point. If it is clear that those rules are statutory rules within the meaning of that Act and that the 40 days of previous publication would be 40 days before the rules were confirmed by the Minister, it would very largely meet my point.

8.15 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I can relieve the apprehensions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when I tell him that it is obvious that neither the board nor the Minister want to make rules which will affect local authorities without, in pro
per cases, the associations of local authorities being consulted. In order that it shall be quite clear that local authorities will have an opportunity of making representations on any rules that are proposed to be made we have inserted the words:
Any such rules shall when confirmed be laid before Parliament.
The effect of those words is to bring the rules under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, which says:
The statutory rules to which this section applies are those made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament which directs the statutory rules to be laid before Parliament.
Therefore this particular Sub-section clearly connects these rules with this Act of Parliament. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 says:
During those forty days any public body may obtain copies of such draft rules…and any representations or suggestions made in writing by a public body interested to the authority proposing to make the rules shall be taken into consideration by that authority before finally settling the rules.
In order to make sure that the rules before they are finally confirmed shall be published and that everyone shall have an opportunity of making representations, we have adopted this particular form of procedure.

Major HILLS: I take it that associations of local authorities would be public bodies within the meaning of that Section?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, I think so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in page 46, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(3) Before making draft Regulations under this Section the Minister shall consult with the Treasury upon any Regulation which involves a charge upon the Exchequer.
I can only assume that the omission of a provision of this kind is an error of draftsmanship, because it is incredible that this procedure can have been deliberately adopted. It is manifestly a constitutional monstrosity. I ask hon. Members to consider the procedure. A board makes regulations relating to needs; it can set up any scales it likes for that purpose. They go to the Minister, who can approve them, and they come up for the approval of Parliament. At no stage in that process is there any legal requirement for consultation with the Treasury. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was Minister of Labour and picture him as changed from the genial orator we all know and delight to hear into a strong, silent man who declines to consult with any body at all, who takes his own way. An election is about to take place. He puts forward attractive proposals with elaborate scales of relief, with adequate allowances, which Parliament, with an election in sight, gratefully accepts. At no stage is there any security that the Treasury has the money with which to pay. I suggest that the omission of the Treasury is not even a kindness to the unemployed. The satisfaction of the unemployed depends on the money being there. I can only assume that this is an oversight, because in Part I, where the same problem arises in Clause 17, which we did not have an opportunity to debate, it is provided that the Minister shall consult with the Treasury.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I am not sure that I follow the purpose of the Amendment. In Clause 46, Subsection (3) it would appear that the consent of the Treasury is necessary.

Mr. DENMAN: Yes, that is when the bill comes to be paid. Of course, at that moment Treasury consent is necessary. The Minister of Labour cannot submit an estimate to Parliament without the approval of the Treasury. You would have this absurd position. Certain scales have been recognised by Parliament, and an Estimate to implement them is coming up. The Treasury not having the money to pay might want to reduce the amount. What an absurd position for the Treasury, when Parliament has already approved the scales? Clearly the Treasury is bound to accept any estimate which does
no more than pay out money which has been demanded by scales approved by Parliament. I hope this is only an omission. When I last mentioned the matter the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said that I need have no anxiety because the Treasury would be consulted. In every other Statute where Parliament has to provide money there is a provision that the Treasury shall in the first instance be consulted. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me a single instance in which we are entitled to create a charge without prior consultation between the Treasury and the Minister I admit that I have no case, but I do not think he can give me any such instance. I submit again that, as the Bill stands, it is a constitutional monstrosity.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not going to reply to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I will leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary, who can deal with the hon. Member much better. But I think some protest should be made against the spectacle of an hon. Member who is supposed to be a friend of the working man and a Socialist trying to make the difficulties of the poor people even greater than they are now. The hon. Member is now asking that before the Minister of Labour does anything he must go to the Treasury. Everyone knows what that means. It means less money; and we thus have the spectacle of a man who came into this House with the votes of the working-class movement proposing something even worse than that which is proposed by a Conservative Minister of Labour. The hon. Member is even more harsh than the Conservative Minister of Labour, and to me it is a terrible spectacle. Whether I or someone else will be Minister of Labour in doing things with the Treasury behind my back is a spectacle that I need not contemplate.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: The Amendment is not really necessary, because surely under the principle of Cabinet responsibility the Minister of Labour will go to the Cabinet and will get approval of any burden that it is proposed to place on the taxpayer, and he will inevitably consult the Treasury to make sure that his promise will hold good.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member suggested that it would be a constitutional monstrosity if the Clause did not contain the words of the Amendment. I suggest that it would be a constitutional monstrosity for a Minister of Labour to approve these regulations without consulting the Treasury. Quite clearly the draft regulations will be laid before the House on the Government's responsibility. The Government will take responsibility for the regulations as a whole and, naturally, in the ordinary course of events, the various Members of the Government will consult each other. With all respect I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Amendment is quite superfluous. The various Members of the Government, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be consulted by the Minister of the day.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: That is a very unsatisfactory answer. The Parliamentary Secretary is entirely inconsistent. If the Government take up that attitude now why are they so careful in Clause 17 that the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, shall lay these draft orders before Parliament? There must be some meaning behind the omission of the words in this Clause. What is the meaning of the Minister requiring Treasury control in Part I of the Bill and deliberately omitting it in Part II? In reply to the personal remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I would much rather be that kind of friend of the working-classes who is sure that what promises he makes can be fulfilled. The essential thing here is that the money shall be available. The procedure laid down in the Clause provides for no Treasury consultation, and, as I said, a strong silent Minister of Labour, acting on his own, might hold out promises that there was no reasonable chance of fulfilling, and there would be no one to stop him. However, there is no use in dividing the Committee on the point, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.29 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to oppose the Clause, which I regard as one of the
worst in the Bill. It gives power to the board not only to make rules but to make regulations. Let me take the regulations first. Sub-section (3) of Clause 37 says:
Such regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member.
That gives the Unemployment Assistance Board power to make regulations for continuing the means test.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has already been decided by the Committee. All that Clause 51 does is to provide that the rules and regulations must be laid before Parliament and be approved by Parliament. The power to make those regulations has already been decided.

Mr. BATEY: I understood that when you ruled earlier in the Debate regarding the rules, we were to have the privilege of debating the regulations. It is quite true that the regulations have to be laid before Parliament and that Parliament has to approve them, but we have to approve the regulations in bulk and we shall not be able to move Amendments to them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must have slightly misunderstood my earlier Ruling. That Ruling was that the question whether the regulations should be laid before Parliament was covered in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), and not in Sub-section (1), an Amendment to which was then under discussion. All we can deal with on the Motion now before the Committee is, what happens to the regulations after they have been made.

Mr. BATEY: Would I be in order in discussing what the regulations contained, seeing that they have to come before Parliament in bulk and it will be a question of accepting them or rejecting them and not of dealing with any particular regulation or amending it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Motion does not deal with what the regulations may contain. The hon. Member can only argue as to the procedure under which the regulations will be brought before this House.

Mr. BATEY: When the regulations are brought before the House we ought to
have an opportunity of discussing and coming to a decision upon each regulation. The regulations are going to be far too important to be dealt with otherwise. They will deal with the needs of a family and what a family should receive. That is highly important to some of us who come from districts where large numbers of men will come under this board. The regulations mean so much to us, that we want to have the opportunity of dealing with each one of them when they come before this House. One can imagine that there will be some regulations upon which we would not want to divide the House, but certainly the regulation that is to deal with the needs of a family is one on which we should wish to divide. Therefore I urge that the Committee should not pass this Clause as it stands.
Let me go back now to the rules. In the discussion that has taken place latitude has been allowed in debating what the rules will contain. One notices that the Unemployment Assistance Board is to have power to make rules in connection with the appeal tribunals. We endeavoured to introduce an Amendment in another Clause providing that a man who went before one of these tribunals should be accompanied by someone who could represent him and help him to put his case properly. Some of us represent constituencies in which there are many men who will come under Part II of the Bill and will be subject to the Unemployment Assistance Board. A man may be granted an allowance which he considers unfair and may desire to appeal. He may be unable to put his own case as it ought to be put before the tribunal. Such a man ought to have the assistance of someone else—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be raising another question which has already been decided by the Committee. I must also remind the hon. Member of the existence of Standing Order 18.

Mr. BATEY: The discussion on the Amendments relating to the rules went on the lines which I am now following.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the discussion on the earlier Amendments had reference to the question of whether the rules ought to be approved by Parliament
or not. I must also remind him that it is not in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to repeat arguments which have already been used on Amendments proposed to the Clause.

Mr. BATEY: I am not aware that the question of the appeal tribunals was dealt with in the earlier discussion, and as the rules for the appeal tribunals are to be made by the Unemployment Assistance Board one would naturally expect that it was in order to raise such an important matter. I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it to be understood that there is to be an appeal tribunal set up in every district?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that question can possibly arise on this Clause.

Mr. BATEY: I presume then that I would be out of order also in raising any question as to the rules to be made by the board in regard to training camps. If that is the case I can only say that it is a pity that this Debate is to be so restricted. Generally speaking, we are allowed fairly wide debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If however it is the Ruling of the Chair that the Debate on this occasion is to be within narrow limits let me say this. I consider that the Committee would be justified in rejecting this Clause because these rules are to be made by an outside body, and by men who are perhaps altogether unsympathetic towards those receiving benefit and the House of Commons ought to insist on retaining the power of final decision in regard to any rules or regulations made by this board and particularly the rules. Since becoming Members of Parliament some of us have taken an active part in dealing with unemployment questions. Now, for the first time, by this Clause, Parliament is to be deprived of any voice in dealing with these matters. The immense power involved in making rules and regulations of this sort is one which should be subject to discussion and control in Parliament.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The ton. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) in that part of his speech which was in order raised a point of substance and that is
the extent to which we are permitting the use of regulations and doing things by regulation, which might more properly be done by Statute. We all appreciate the fact that as a result of Acts passed particularly by this Parliament, there has been a constant flow of Ministerial regulations, sometimes as important as and in some cases almost more important than the provisions in the relevant Acts themselves. The Committee ought to consider the extent to which this method of Ministerial regulations is going to be used in the future. There has been a great deal of controversy in the past 12 months about the unauthorised programme put forward for the consumption of the Socialist party by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). His proposals which have been denounced in many quarters, are that there should first be an Enabling Act or Emergency Powers Act, and that, thereafter, the Government should have power to act by means of Orders in Council which presumably would come before Parliament for acceptance or rejection. It seems to me there is not much difference between what is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman and what is in this Bill. As the hon. Member for Spennymoor pointed out, we have in this case either to accept or reject; we have no opportunity to amend. The greatest importance should be attached to this question of amending regulations.
In all parts of the Committee I think there is a feeling that Parliamentary procedure needs to be reformed and in some cases expedited. It may be that we shall be able to reform it by this method of regulation, but if we allow these vital matters—vital at any rate to a large number of our fellow citizens—to be dealt with by regulations we may do one of two things. If we allow the regulations to be amended, we are inventing a new and speedier form of legislation. On the other hand, if regulations are to be rushed through Parliament, without allowing any Amendment in either House, we are derogating from the power of Parliament. Every Member for an industrial constituency appreciates the importance of the matters which are to be dealt with by these regulations. It would not be in order for me to go into the various decisions that will have to be taken under Clause 37, but in fact
something that a few years ago would have been dealt with by means of legislation, and on the Floor of this House, is to be dealt with by means of regulation. I join the hon. Member for Spennymoor in his protest against our having to decide for or against these things without any opportunity of discussing them Clause by Clause, line by line, and word by word.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to say a word in support of what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) has just said with regard to the need for this House taking control of this form of legislation by administrative order, and in particular that this House should have the opportunity, either on the Floor of the House or through its Committees, of thoroughly considering regulations in draft and amending them. If the hon. Member for Dundee had studied a little more carefully the writings of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), he would have known that my hon. and learned Friend has made very full and detailed proposals to precisely that effect. We get Orders put down in this way and brought here, giving Ministers the chance of making all-important Orders, which come before this House very often late in the evening and have to be either accepted or rejected. I think the system has grown and has got steadily worse, and one recognises, in the complicated legislation of the present time, that there must be a means of making Orders applying detailed regulations, but they should come in a form in which the House can amend them. The hon. Member for Dundee will find that what he has been saying this evening has been but a faint repetition of proposals made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: Your Ruling, Captain Bourne, has rather restricted this discussion, but I understand that the Clause gives to the board power to draw up regulations and rules and submit them to the Minister, who then has power to amend or accept them. If he amends them, what he amends is submitted to Parliament, but Parliament has no right to alter it. It must either accept or reject, and that puts us in a very curious position, because there may be parts of regulations and rules that will be acceptable
to the House and there may be other parts that are clearly wrong, in the opinion of the House. We are told, however, that we must either accept them in [...]ull or reject them. It appears to me to be a travesty of Parliamentary Government, and I hope the National Government, though they are in a tremendous majority at the moment, will recognise where they are leading Parliament. There will not always be a National Government. There may be a change of Government some time or another, and the National Government are putting a weapon into the hands of future Parliaments by what they are doing here. It might be said that others will accept that power and use it accordingly, but when you do that you are undermining the authority of Parliament.
I can visualise a state of things arising in which Members of Parliament will say. "What is the use of our attending Parliament at all?" It brings very closely to our minds what is already happening. Owing to our having a National Government with an overwhelming majority, we are getting nothing like the attendance of Members to which Parliament is entitled, and it is largely because those who belong to the National Government believe that they can carry on without their all being present; and the Opposition are so depleted that it is physically impossible for them to keep up with the work. The result is that Parliament is already getting discredited, and I do not think anyone wishes that to happen. I believe it is the feeling of all the citizens of this country that Parliament stands for the right thing, but it is not right to hand to one Minister absolute power to do whatever he likes.
This is too grave a matter to be allowed to pass through so easily as it appears to be passing to-night. We have passed Clause after Clause without being able to deal with them effectively, and now we land on Clause 51, which seems to be the last ditch, as it were, and under it our powers are being handed over to a certain body over which Parliament will have no control. I raise my voice in protest, and I trust that hon. Members opposite will realise where we are getting and will impress on the Minister that these rules and regulations should be subject to greater scrutiny than is provided under the Clause.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. PALING: An Amendment was moved a little while ago by an hon. Member opposite to give some power to local authorities, who would have some amount of authority in working this Bill, and the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that rules would be drawn up and that within a certain limited number of days those rules would be submitted to the local authorities. I want to know if the local authorities will have any power to make any suggestions and, if any suggestions are made, whether the rules can be amended in accordance with those suggestions.

Mr. HUDSON: I am sorry I did not make myself clear, but I read out the relevant portion of the Act of 1893 which will apply to these rules. The Act says that for 40 days during which they have to be published any public body may obtain copies of the rules and any representations or suggestions made in writing by the public body shall be taken into account by the authority. The authority makes the draft rules, publishes them, and during 40 days any local authority has the right to make representations to the board, and the board must take those representations into consideration.

Mr. PALING: Then apparently the local authorities are to have some power given to them which is denied to this House? Apparently we shall not have the right, as Members of Parliament or as a House of Commons, even to make suggestions to the board after they have sent out certain rules. Local authorities will have that right, but the House of Commons will have no such right. The only right that we shall have, when the regulations come before us, is either to accept them as a whole or to reject them as a whole. My next point is that under the Bill this question of regulations is much more important than it has been under previous Bills from the Ministry of Labour. It is true that previously we have only had the same right as we are getting here of accepting or rejecting regulations as a whole. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have used that argument time after time. They have said that this has always been done, and as it has worked fairly well there is no reason why it should not be done in future.
There is the difference, however, that in the past when it has been done the authority has rested with the Minister of Labour, and Members have always been able to ask questions about administration or to approach the Minister about any of the things with which they were dissatisfied. That power will be taken away from us in future, for the whole authority of administration is to be handed over to the board so that, if a Member has a case which he wishes to bring before the Minister, or if he wants to put a question to the Minister, he will be told that the matter has passed out of his hands. I believe that it is being done deliberately because the Ministry of Labour is heartily sick of the whole business and wants to get it out of their hands. Because this power is being taken from us we are entitled to some extra power to amend the regulations. That will be the only way we shall have left to us, as the House of Commons, to make any impression on administration.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: Were this Clause and the powers contained in it submitted by a Labour Government with the same measure of support that the present Government have, it would be strongly opposed by those now supporting it. The Clause suggests that the board is a committee which may advise the Minister, and that he may or may not accept the advice which it gives to him. The Minister is entitled to draft regulations independent of what the board itself may think, because the Clause says:
The Minister shall consider any draft regulations so submitted to him and shall make draft regulations either in the form of the draft submitted to him or subject to such variations and amendments as he thinks fit.
He may vary it altogether. There is nothing to limit his discretion to vary the draft; in fact, the regulations may be made purely within his own discretion. I submit that if he were a real Labour Minister in charge of this Bill, that proposal would receive the most bitter opposition from those who are now sponsoring it.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I associate myself with the criticisms that have been made on this Clause. I do not want to go into
the academic question of whether this way of creating new legislation by regulations is or is not a legitimate development in legislative procedure; and I gather that you have ruled that to discuss the possible contents of these regulations is not in order at this stage. I wish to make a point, however, with regard to the tendency of the legislation of recent times. The use of regulations to apply the details of a Measure is not something new, but what is being left to regulations seems to be steadily growing in importance relative to what is in the actual Bill. It is a sound device from the point of view of the Government in power. They present the House with a Bill which is really only a skeleton. All the essential things that actually affect the people when the Statute becomes operative are left to regulations.
It seems to me to be transferring the duty of legislation entirely away from the House of Commons, which is elected to do it, on to a body of non-responsible people. I use the word "non-responsible" rather than "irresponsible" as being, I think, more applicable. The four or five gentlemen who are put on to this Unemployment Assistance Board may be very responsible persons in the ordinary affairs of life. They may even carry out their routine duties of administering public assistance in a responsible way, but they will never be regarded as being responsible to anybody in carrying out legislative duties which are not theirs essentially.
The really serious thing about this legislation is not the passing over to another body of the application of detailed points in a big Measure that has been discussed fully here, but the fact that the board are being asked to make, under the name of regulations, new law which in some of its aspects is more important than the things that have actually been discussed here and received the mandate of this House. I was reading in the week-end newspaper that the elections are now in progress for the Italian Parliament. I understand that the form that takes now is that Signor Mussolini draws up a list of 400 appropriate Members of Parliament and presents it to an electorate which is entitled to say either "yes" or "no." I have heard arguments put up in this Committee to-night in favour of regulations on the ground that they save time.
I should think that, compared with our present method of electing a Parliament in England, the Italian method saves a considerable amount of time—and expenditure and worry, too. If one wishes to be a Member of Parliament in Italy and gets on the list, I can understand that it is all right, but it is a far cry from what we understand as Parliamentary democracy to that form of getting a representative Government where the national dictator says, "Here is your Parliament. Take it or leave it. God help you if you do not take it." That is very much the position with which we are being confronted in the matter of these regulations, and if the services of the House of Commons as a debating and legislative assembly can be set aside so easily in favour of a board appointed by the Executive of the day, it is a very short step to putting aside Parliament itself. I sometimes have grave doubts as to whether under existing conditions it is worth while coming here, and if this system were to go on to a much greater extent my mind would be made up entirely—not that the political ideas I have would have to be dropped, but I should have to make up my mind that they would have to be achieved by some other method.
We have had certain promises from the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend above the Gangway is inclined to be cynical. I think better of the Prime Minister, and I do not think his is the proper attitude at all. I should have thought the hon. Member, with his sense of humour, would have preferred that line of criticism rather than the cynical and bitter one. If we are to discuss the faults and failings and virtues of the Prime Minister, we must at once ask for a special day. I am sure the Prime Minister would readily grant it for such an important subject. There is none that is more important in his eye. But at the moment we are discussing these regulations, and I suggest that before the Bill reaches its concluding stages the Government should reconsider the tremendous powers they are handing over to this board, and that when the discussion as to the future procedure which the Prime Minister has promised takes place, this question of the amount of legislation done by regulations shall be one of the issues discussed. The Bill in its final form ought to contain some
power for the House to keep control over and to amend these regulations, and ought to secure that the last authority in determining how the unemployed people under Part II shall be treated shall rest with this House, and not with any group of people who are quite detached and removed from public criticism.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The discussions on Part II have found the Committee faced with greater difficulties than have been experienced, perhaps, in respect of any other piece of legislation. When we have been discussing what is meant by certain Clauses we have been told that we cannot know what those Clauses mean until we see the regulations. Over and over again Members on the Government benches have said, "This is entirely out of order, or, at any rate, if not out of order, it is simply an empty prophecy, because you do not know what will be done until you see the regulations." That argument has provided a marvellous "get-out" for the Government. We Have never had a reply from the Government benches to any special point of criticism on Part II because the Government have not been able to reply.
We have had to proceed on the assumption of what the board will do as to A, B, C and D, because that is not known even to the Government. What the Bill does is to hand over to the board very wide and general powers. While we are giving power to make regulations under Part II, we are unable to discuss the content of those regulations. In that way the House of Commons has been effectually debarred from discussing the fate of practically 1,000,000 unemployed men and 5,000,000 people altogether, without counting those who may be dependent upon them. On no single occasion in connection with this Bill have we had the opportunity of discussing what is to happen to these people, and the reason for that is that the Government have not put the fate of these people into the Bill. All they put in the Bill is a board, and they say that what the board will do will be determined by regulations which the Board will place before the House.
While I was having some food you gave a Ruling, Captain Bourne, that we are now unable to discuss the contents of the regulations that the board may
make. I am not complaining about your Ruling, because you are constrained by the limitations of the Bill, and you are unable yourself, in your own person, to protect the people of Great Britain against the cowardice of the Government. Nevertheless, we do say that this method of legislation is cowardly, that it is against the traditions of this country. That is being realised by the country, and as this Bill has been proceeding through Committee the Government have become more and more uncomfortable. I do not apologise for speaking with great heat in this matter.

Sir JOHN PYBUS: It is the length, not the heat.

Mr. COVE: You did not know your job as Minister. You were unable to explain your own Bills. [Interruption.] You lost your job.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we should get on better without interruptions.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member opposite complains about the length of my speech. The constituency of the hon. Gentleman has been unrepresented in the House of Commons for many months, except from about 9 o'clock until 11, when the hon. Member comes into the House for what he hopes will be entertainment. I represent a constituency in which practically 50 per cent. of the population will be dependent upon what this board does. Perhaps that will make the hon. Gentleman realise why I attach importance to what we are doing here. This method of legislation disfranchises 50 per cent. of my constituents. Perhaps he will realise, further, that many of those men are mutilated and wounded and spent 4½ years of their lives in Flanders to defend the liberty which this Bill takes away. We have heard the Treasury Bench and, up and down the country, hon. Gentlemen who belong to the Conservative party, paying lip service to the heroism of the men who went out to Flanders in 1914–18. This Bill takes away their rights. It prevents 50 per cent. of my constituents from having any voice at all over the conditions in which they are to live.
The cant and hypocrisy of this House is reaching the limits of degradation. Last Thursday we discussed the distressed areas, and everybody wept crocodile tears
over the articles in the "Times" newspaper and talked about Durham, South Wales, Lancashire and the Clyde. In those are as live the vast majority of the men who are receiving transitional payments. Those men are transferred to Part II of this Bill. The Government are taking £300,000 from Durham, but not a word is said about that, although it is adding to the distress in the area. It is proposed to deal with these men in future by regulation, and to refuse by regulation to allow a Member of Parliament representing those distressed areas a chance to put down any Amendment. If I am not entitled to call that "canting humbug," what can I call it? If hon. Members really believe that those men are entitled to the liberties that the British Constitution has conferred upon them for 300 years, they will permit Members of Parliament to represent the distressed areas, when proposals are brought before this House that will decide the livelihood of those men and the well-being of their children, as well as everything else which affects their welfare.
The we fare of the children is concerned because the Unemployment Assistance Board will decide how much money is to go into the families of 50 per cent. of my constituents; it will decide how much money is to go to practically half the population of Durham, and whether the children in those cases are to be brought up with a decent physical foundation or are to be starved. That is what the regulations are to decide. They will decide how the children are to be educated. If no means are going into a household, that deprives the children of the unemployed of the benefits of the British educational system. To decide the physical well-being and the education of the children is to decide their whole lives. That is what hon. Members are doing. We suggest that a Member of Parliament should have the right to represent the claims of those people upon the Floor of the House of Commons, and yet the hon. Member to whom I have referred comes here and jeers. This, I submit, is the last chance that we shall have, and the hon. Member does not seem to realise it. I am not concerned about quibbles, but about the real and human meaning of what is happening in the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are we!"] It is canting humbug to say that you are. It is humbug of the most mealy-mouthed
description to say that you are. The Government are taking away from the House of Commons the risk of the embarrassment of their supporters. When hon. Members complain at others speaking at length upon these matters in the Committee, do they not understand that we are parting with a method of legislation which is centuries old?
I do not mind if you do that in regard to turbines, electricity, coal or transport, but in this case you are doing it in regard to human beings. When lawyers get up and talk detachedly and abstractly about regulations or rules, and about the necessity of exempting the House of Commons from the obligation to discuss detail, as though there were no living reality behind it, they become absolutely meaningless. No hon. Member objects to the adaptation of constitutional procedure to enable us to get through the vast mass of business which confronts us, but the method which is here suggested takes away from the House of Commons not rights about the administration of things but the right of the ordinary citizen of Great Britain to have his most vital interests represented here. There is no legal quibble in that, but there is a vast human consideration from which hon. Members on the Government Benches try to conceal themselves.
There is a further matter to which I would like to refer. We have had no chance, in the Committee stage, of discus-sing the means test. In Clause 51, which we are now discussing, we are referred to Sub-section (3) of Clause 37. What does that say? If my memory serves me correctly, it discusses all the conditions of the means test and the circumscribing conditions of unemployment assistance. A concession was won in the Committee that the first 20s. of disability pension should be ignored in assessing family income. It has been the practice since 1931 to make workmen's compensation parallel with the disability pension. We shall be debarred from putting down Amendments asking that the first 20s. of workmen's compensation shall be ignored. That would be an important Amendment on a vital matter. Men are mutilated, they are losing their limbs, they are crushed, they suffer from nystagmus, miners' phthisis, silicosis, and all sorts of dreadful industrial diseases, but we shall be debarred, as representatives of the industrial constituencies, from putting down
an Amendment of that kind, although we have not been able to discuss the subject in Committee. We have not had a chance to discuss it. We did not reach it. The Government gagged it, and when their regulations come before us we shall be gagged again, because the Minister in charge of them will not defend them.
Ministers defend nothing now. They shelter themselves behind the technique of Government. They get up and say, as they have said in the course of this Debate, "There is no need for us to defend this. It has received the careful consideration of the six persons who are dealing with these matters, and it has received the consideration of the Minister, so that there is no need for us to do any more than to commend it to the approval of the House." That is removing from the Government any obligation whatever of defending their legislation. It is a very easy job for Parliamentary Secretaries and for Ministers of Labour. The way in which the Parliamentary Secretary started off on this Bill would, I thought, enhance his Parliamentary reputation. He made a very good speech on the Second Reading, one of the best speeches that I have heard from the Government Front Bench for some years. He has not made one since, and from that high altitude his reputation has gradually declined, and it has declined because he has brought forward a Bill which does not lay upon him the responsibility of defending anything. He simply has to rely upon a technique of this kind.
I am not anxious to discuss this business in greater detail, but I want to say with every sincerity that I believe that hon. Members, in legislating in this kind of way, are not being decent, quite apart from party politics, to those hundreds of thousands of workmen who have had every chance of rescue stripped from them and who are absolutely helpless, caught up in the mazes of an industrial system over which they have no control. Their present fate is decided for them by social forces as immutable as the ancient gods, and, when they want to have their interests safeguarded by their public representatives, you take away from them the only chance they have of making their voices heard. This is a cheap way of doing the business. There is something to be said for Fascism. At any rate, it is open: they bring their
Fascists and their hooligans; they do not do it in evening dress, or bring up smugfaced, mealy-mouthed lawyers to defend them. You are taking away from the working-classes any means they might have of making their voices heard in the councils of the people.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the seriousness of this Clause. When Part I was going through, I looked upon that as important, but it is not half so important as Part II. One of the things which I have always thought most peculiar in Part II is that, whereas in Part I we got a concession from time to time, in this portion of the Bill, with perhaps one exception, we have had no concession at all. That exception dealt with the question of ex-service men, a sentimental issue on which the Government were afraid to face the people. Part II is so important because it deals with a section of the population who have been the longest out of work.
In debating this Clause I want to review the actual powers that the board will possess. It is as well that the House should review what powers this board will have, to carry out the tremendous actions that they will carry out in regard to the unemployed of this country. The board have greater power now than Parliament. They will possess a power, once this Bill is passed, to declare the amount that a child shall receive. Under the regulations they will be entitled to say whether that amount shall be small or large; in other words, they can set aside Parliamentary opinion. There is one vital issue in this country. I only speak for the places that I know well, but there the people have long since dropped the promises of all classes of politicians that a job was going to be given to them. They have waited patiently. In my early days they did not bother much about unemployment benefit; the thought that a job was coming was superior. They drifted on hoping for a job; they wanted work and wages, not unemployment benefit. But the work did riot come, and the great issue in the country is now the care of the unemployed. I challenged one hon. Member and he did not accept my challenge; he knew it was true.
In London the remarkable thing is that the unemployment, on an average, is low. In the London County Council elections, although unemployment is low in London, the one dominating issue was the care of the child and how much it was to receive. It was a "3s. to the child" election. From one platform to the other that was the issue. Even where unemployment was lowest, in Chelsea and Westminster, at meeting after meeting the well-being of the child and what it was to receive was the dominating issue. The London County Council, a public body, had determined that amount, but to-day you are handing to a nondescript board over a duty and a right—the right to say to at least 2,000,000 children how they are to live. You have no right to do that. I do not care who the board are; you have no right to say to that board that, they shall say what a child is to get. That board can flout medical opinion. If medical opinion says that the child needs 3s., the board can say "We don't care." The board can flout Parliamentary opinion.
Please note that we can challenge the Minister in the Vote on every other issue. You can challenge the Home Office on the care of a criminal; let a criminal die, and I can come to this House and attack the Home Office on their treatment of him. Let a child be underfed under the Poor Law, and I can attack the Scottish Office in Scotland. But let a child receive insufficient here, and this board is to be left alone. There is no Parliamentary control on this one vital issue. No other issue matters. Housing matters a little, but it hardly matters; food matters. That is the struggle you are now facing. Today these other issues, important as they might seem, have been flung aside, but in this I think the people are right. To-day the issue is that this board have an absolute right by regulation to determine how sickness is to be dealt with, apart from the 7s. 6d. They can determine inside a home who the family is to be. They can make any kind of contact in family life; they can say that a stepson, stepfather, cousin, or any kind of relation can be a member of the family. They can determine this by regulation. Who can determine it? Six men. We do not know who the six are; they may be six men divorced from the common people; six people with no actual contact from day to
day with the realities of life. We give to those six men powers that the House of Commons has for many years fought to possess.
Why did this Government come into office? Why did the Labour party come into being? The answer is simple; it was poverty that brought them in. [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. I never was more serious, and I do not intend that this shall be made into a sneering Debate. I am not going to allow the hon. Member to sidetrack me into a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter to me; it is the most serious thing in the whole of politics. That party came into being for one reason—poverty. What brought them into being was this issue of the maintenance of the unemployed. That great party has held Government responsibility, and, if I may say so, is likely to hold it again at a comparatively early date, but in the intervening period they are to have no say in determining the issue of poverty in this country.
I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) saying what I thought was very true—how kind individually the House of Commons can be. Everybody is kind to an individual appeal. If anyone goes to any Member of the House, whether Tory, Liberal or Labour, with an individual appeal for some human being, that Member will be as kind as anyone could imagine. But, my hon. Friend said, taking them collectively, the same kind individuals could do the most cruel things as a collective body. You are doing them to-night. I noticed that the Prime Minister, in a letter to the Press, said that the House of Commons had not turned down 3s. for a child, but, wisely, had not expressed a figure. There might have been some truth in that statement of the Prime Minister if this Clause had not been in the Bill, and if the Amendment which has been moved had been included in the Bill. If the suggested committee, on going into the point and submitting their report to the House of Commons, recommended 2s., then it would have been open to the House of Commons to agree. But no; the House of Commons hand over to this small body the right under the Bill to determine almost anything for the unemployed. There are two issues, to which I have already referred, which annoy me
considerably. One is that of payment in kind to the unemployed. Ever since unemployment insurance was instituted, payments to the unemployed have always been made in actual money. For the first time this Bill finishes that.

Mr. HOWARD: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let the hon. Member wait while I develop my point. I say that for the first time payment in kind is to be made by a Government to the unemployed. I know that it is done in England under the Poor Law, though it has never been done much in Scotland, but here, for the first time in connection with the national care of the unemployed, payment in kind is to be provided for in a national Act of Parliament. Hitherto, under all governments, even in the case of extended benefit, money has been paid to the individual. For the first time we are departing from that principle and are giving power to this body to define the regulations under which payment in kind shall be made. That is a terribly serious thing. The House of Commons many years ago abolished the truck system in the payment of wages, but, when a National Government starts paying the unemployed, or sections of them, in kind, it is getting very near the truck system for wages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must remind the hon. Member that the Committee has already decided that that shall be done, and all that we are discussing now is whether or not the House shall have opportunities of revising the regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, we have decided that, but we have not decided the regulations under which it can be done. I say that the House, if it departs from a vital principle, should only depart from it under conditions that provide safeguards up to the last limit. We have given that power, and what I am claiming now is that the regulations which make a person receive payment in kind ought to be scrutinised and amended by the House of Commons. Surely that is not an undue claim. All that I say is that, before that terrible power can be exercised, the House of Commons should survey the regulations. In my view this Clause is a deadly Clause in its operation. It is perfectly true that certain
local authorities are anxious to get this Bill from the point of view that it will help to save them local rates, but, with all the burdens that I know are being borne by Glasgow and Durham and other places, I would infinitely prefer the present Poor Law system, with all its disadvantages, to the handing over of the power to this small body. Under the Poor Law system there is at least public control. The man can go to his council and have the matter raised; he can invoke a public control in some way or other; but here, even if a Member of Parliament comes and asks the reason for what has been done, the answer he will get is that this body has submitted its regulations and they have been approved. When, however, the regulations come here, it will not be possible to amend them; the matter will be a vote of confidence in the Minister. It will not even be done free from the party Whips. We shall have to take what the Minister says, and do what he does; and it is to be decided by these six men.
Many years ago, on great constitutional issues, the country took certain powers away from another place; they decided that another place should have no power in certain matters of finance. But to-day we are giving to six men greater power than the House of Lords ever possessed. The House of Lords works in public; there is this at least to be said for it, that it does its work from day to day in public. Yet this country curbed its power. To-day these six men are being given power to draft their regulations in private, to submit them here, and then to do their day-to-day work in private, without even the defence that a criminal has—without the public defence of a lawyer, without the public defence of a Press. To-day we are engaged in a wholesale conspiracy. Why? Because these people are poor. They are unwanted. They are a burden.
I see everywhere an effort made to do something for the poor. One week it is to sterilise them, the next to do this and the other, all because they are a burden. You only need them when there is a war, and then you tell them how good they are. If there were a war, you would make an appeal to their patriotism, and they would go. But you do not even give them the right to public criticism
of the House of Commons. I agree with the last speaker that it is the most shameful thing that I have seen here. It gives one a feeling of contempt to think of the Prime Minister, who was put there with the shillings and pennies of these people, taking part in this conspiracy to rob them of their rights. If he were a lesser person, he would be sentenced for being a criminal and a felon. As long as he is engaged in this conspiracy, he is even more contemptible than the worst felon.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: After the two last speeches it would perhaps be well if I reminded the Committee what the Clause really does. We have gone to the extreme practical limits of securing Parliamentary responsibility and control over the actions of the board. The board has to draft the regulations and the Minister, with his full sense of Ministerial responsibility, can amend them in any way he thinks fit, subject to having to produce to the House of Commons the comments of the board on any alterations that he makes. It must be clear to the Committee that these regulations, covering as they will a whole multitude of possible circumstances, are bound to be very complicated. The whole object of setting up the board was to attempt to see that this new scheme of national responsibility for the relief of the able-bodied unemployed was carried out in as broad and uncontroversial and impartial a spirit as was possible, and it is, therefore, to be anticipated that the regulations which the board will issue after due consideration will be comprehensive regulations looking at the problem as a whole and, above all, treating the family as a whole.

Mr. A. BEVAN: What family?

Mr. HUDSON: The family which is to be the unit—the household. If our expectations are fulfilled, that those regulations are to be comprehensive and to have regard to the household as a whole, the Committee will, I hope, agree that the result of Amendments here and there would almost certainly be to upset the general balance of the regulations. It is proposed that they should be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and should not come into operation until both Houses have passed affirmative resolutions. Hon. Members opposite might well stop to consider for
a moment what, in somewhat analogous circumstances, they did. They passed the Anomalies Act of 1931, Section 1 of which enables the Minister to
impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit, to impose restrictions on the amount and period of benefit, and make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts relating to the determination of claims for benefit as may appear necessary for the purposes aforesaid.
There was no question of submitting those regulations to the approval of the House of Commons. The party opposite gave the Minister of Labour full power to alter the conditions for the receipt of benefit, although they were incorporated in an Act of Parliament, to increase contributions, to diminish the length of time for which a man might receive benefit or to cut him off benefit altogether. There was no question of submitting the regulations for amendment or even of bringing them before the House. The Minister was given full and irresponsible power, after consulting the Advisory Committee, to make such regulations as he thought fit, and there was an end to it. We do not desire in any way to reduce the responsibility of the House. The regulations will come before the House in due course with all the responsibility of the Government behind them, and the Government will stand or fall by them. In any case the House of Commons will be free to say "Yes" or "No" and, if they decide that the regulations are not reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, it will be open to them to reject them and to instruct the Minister, the Government and the board to bring forward regulations which do meet with their approval. For these reasons, on the whole I think the procedure outlined in the Clause is the best.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman, after two speeches which ought to be an indication of the feeling that there is, sought to bring the Committee back to the question that was under discussion, but, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary in his best form, he has singularly failed to do that. The question before the Committee is one of very great principle. We are dealing with the rules that are to be made for the treatment of people who have lost their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. We are in this Bill dividing unemployed
persons into two categories, those who have not been unemployed very long and those who have been unemployed for a very considerable period of time. If they have not been unemployed for very long, they get their statutory benefit without any kind of inquisition. If they have been unemployed sufficiently long to become ineligible for receiving their benefit for more than 26 weeks in the year, they fall into the second category. My submission is that, after these years of trade depression, after this period in the last three or four years of unparalleled unemployment, the people who have been unemployed the longest deserve the most sympathetic consideration. The Bill in a way admits that, because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, and the Parliamentary Secretary have boasted of it and supporters of the Government on the platform have boasted of it. If a man has had a good record for the last five years, even although he has received his 26 weeks, he may receive a little more. That is an admission that this differentiation between the two kinds of unemployed workers is wrong. The appeal that has been made for public support is an appeal that the unemployed workers are to be treated better than they were, but if people have not got good lives and good insurance records, and if they are among the worst kind of victims of the present trade depression, they are to be treated in a very special way.
Why are they being treated like this? For the same purpose and with the same motive as they were treated in 1931 when this Government came into office—for purposes of economy. It is clear that people who fall under Part II of the Bill are to be treated less advantageously than people who enjoy the benefits of Part I. That is clear, because if they were going to be treated as well as they would be if they were receiving Unemployment Insurance benefit, this Government might have permitted them to have continued to receive Unemployment Insurance benefit. It is clear, therefore, that they are to be treated in a less advantageous way. In other words, it is the old business of transitional payments over again. They are to receive less. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted it when he said that they were treating the family as a whole, by which he admitted that he meant the household as a whole. But this new authority
is to be a new kind of Poor Law authority, and run on the same kind of principles as the old Poor Law. I, personally, do not believe in the old Poor Law. I always have been, since I understood the problem, against our Poor Law system, but at least it had this merit, that when the whole resources of the household were taken into account they were taken into account by representative people who were on the spot. The weakness of Clauses 34 and 51 is that you are maintaining the principles of the Poor Law with a centralised authority which has no kind of responsibility whatever to the people in the locality or to the people who represent the masses of the electors in this House.

Sir W. BRASS: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to discuss the means test on this Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: I was on the point of reminding the right hon. Gentleman that I have not yet found out how he applies the argument which he has been using hitherto to the question of rules and regulations with which this Clause deals.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am only replying to a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not discussing the merits of the means test. I must point out to you, Sir Dennis, that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to comprehensive regulations in which he said they were treating the family as a whole, and I had to remind him that it was the household and not the family. I am simply replying to his point. My general argument—and it has application to the rules which are being made under Clause 51—is that, although the Poor Law system may be wrong, as I believe it to be, with its meticulous measurement of household resources, it is at least more reasonable than the principle which is being applied now in Clause 51. The position with which we are faced under this Clause is that, the board, having been established, sitting in Whitehall and responsible to no one, as independent as the judges of the High Court and entirely outside any kind of public control, are, by the rules which they lay down, to exercise the most meticulous kind of regulation over the lives of at least half the unemployed people in this country.
If the Government had laid down in the Bill the principle on which they were going to establish their rules, and if they had put into the Bill the guiding line by which the Unemployment Assistance Board would be governed, there might have been something to be said for this procedure, but the truth is, as I suggested on an earlier Amendment, that no principles at all have been suggested. The board are to be left completely free to determine these rules, to impoverish and to humiliate the people who have lost unemployment insurance benefit through no fault of their own, to discredit the poor, and to do what they like with them, and no man can say them nay. Once this Bill leaves the House, hon. Members opposite may be very pleased that they have got such a buffer. An hon. Member says "a shock-absorber," which is, perhaps, a more expressive phrase. They may be very pleased with it, but the people will not be pleased.
I have no objection whatever to ridding this House of consideration of detailed regulations. I agree with what has been said on the benches opposite to-day that we spend the time of the House discussing things which might well be left to Ministers, but it is not a case of leaving the question to Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, under the Anomalies Act, the thing was left to the Minister. But at least we could have the Minister in the House. He is here now. We can have him here on other occasions. Once this Bill is an Act of Parliament the Minister will be able to go off to dinner, to a cabaret or to such places as he frequents, and he can say, "My heart is wrung. I am sorry for the unemployed, but it has nothing whatever to do with me." He will be perfectly entitled to do so. Is that a position that the Committee can accept when the Minister, ever since there has been a Ministry of Labour, has been charged with the care of the insurable unemployed? Is it a position that this Committee can take, that now we are to hand over a large number of unemployed to a body who under this Clause can make rules which cannot be effectively questioned by this House, and that the Minister should be enabled to enjoy a life of ease such as none of his predecessors has ever enjoyed since the Ministry was established in 1919?
The right hon. Gentleman is in this House, and none of us wish that there should be greater responsibility borne on his shoulders, but we see no reason why he should try to escape his responsibilities. We should prefer that the responsibilities for the unemployed worker which are in Part I or Part II should rest with the Minister of the Crown whose actions can be challenged, and who can be questioned and brought to explain at that Box why he has done this, that and the other. Once this Bill is on the Statute Book, we part with that power, not as regards people who are out of work and in work, people who are organised, and are able to defend themselves, but we are parting with the power to protect the most defenceless sections of the unemployed, those who have been out of work the longest.
During this Parliament this House has taken no greater decision that it is taking on this Bill when it hands over to unnamed persons, with unlimited powers, the right to determine the lives of our fellow citizens. As my hon. Friends have said, it means disfranchisement for large numbers of these people. They will be unable to lay their complaints before any of their representatives. They will be the creatures of a system. They will be in a position which will be no better than that of the helots of ancient Greece. They will not be citizens of this country but will be an inferior slave class. They will have lost their citizen

rights. They will be the people upon whom the nation will call in the nation's hour of trial, and the nation will expect them to respond, as every citizen ought to respond to the nation's call; but you have no right to expect that unemployed people, who have suffered more intensely from economic depression which is largely the result of the last War, should respond if you are now going to deprive them of any kind of appeal to the people who represent the electors.

That is what Clause 34 and Clause 51 are doing. I have no doubt that the Amendment will be defeated. I can only warn the Committee that if they defeat the Amendment they will be acting against the best interests of democracy in this country and certainly against the best interests of large numbers of our people who are in their present circumstances through no fault of their own. They are differentiating between the better-off people and the more unfortunate people. They are hiving off those who are unemployed for a short time and those who have been unemployed for a long time, while those who need the community's help the most, those who have been out of work the longest time, are to be subjected to the indignities of a Poor Law system infinitely worse than the system which was established under the Poor Law of 1834.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 60.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[10.9 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burnett, John George
Dickle, John P.


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duggan, Hubert John


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrlc
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Apsley, Lord
Christie, James Archibald
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fox, Sir Gifford


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Blindell, James
Conant, R. J. E.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cook, Thomas A.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooke, Douglas
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Copeland, Ida
Goff, Sir Park


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Goldie, Noel B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cranborne, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crooke. J. Smedley
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Greene, William P. C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grlmston, R. V.


Browne, Captain A. C
Cross, R. H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hartley, Dennis A.
Milne, Charles
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Harbord, Arthur
Mitcheson, G. G.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, William Shephard
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Spens, William Patrick


Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stevenson, James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Storey, Samuel


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nunn, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Templeton, William P.


Knight, Holford
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Sir Luke


Law, Sir Alfred
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Leckle, J. A.
Radford, E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leach, Dr. J. W.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)
Train, John


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Tree, Ronald


Liddall, Walter S.
Rankin, Robert
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Little, Graham, Sir Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Remer, John R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Ropner. Colonel L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Mabane, William
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Salt, Edward W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Selley, Harry R.
Womersley, Walter James


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Martin, Thomas B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—


Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.
Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Waiter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton;
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams. David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot. Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A, Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgcw, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Modification of enactments; and saving.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.12 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an explanation
of this Clause. It refers to the Seventh Schedule, and perhaps he will explain the Schedule as well. It raises, first the case of the man who has a grievance where his allowance is stopped by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and, secondly, the case of those who are dealt with by a local authority.

Mr. HUDSON: I think I should be out of order in explaining the Schedule at this stage, and I would remind the hon. Member that under the time-table two days are allotted to the Schedules which, I think, will be ample for a discussion of these matters. The only point of substance in the Clause, apart from the reference to the Schedule, is that it deals with the powers and duties of local authorities in regard to health and education. The object of the Clause is to make sure that the board does not break into any of the local services which local authorities are carrying out.

Mr. BATEY: The Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with that part of the Clause which relates to the Schedule. Is it in order for him to give the Committee an explanation of that?

The CHAIRMAN: An explanation of the first part of the Clause would be in order, but it would not be in order to discuss the Schedule.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand, therefore, that we are to have no explanation of the first Sub-section of this Clause?

CLAUSE 53.—(Interpretation of Part II and construction of references.)

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 47, line 31, at the end, to insert:
'In the prescribed manner' means in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Part of this Act.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

10.20 p.m.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in page 48, line 8, at the end, to insert:
'Training courses' in relation to such courses provided and maintained by local authorities includes courses at residential training colonies.
The purpose of this Amendment is to get a definition of training courses inserted in this definition Clause. Clause 36 deals with the provision and maintenance of training courses, and gives power to the Unemployment Assistance Board to contribute towards the cost of such training courses which are provided by local authorities. In view of the fact that some local authorities have residential training centres it ought to be
made quite clear whether or not a training course will include a training centre of a residential character, as distinct from one where courses of instruction are given only from day to day.

Mr. HUDSON: We have on purpose omitted any definition of a training course in order to leave the board as wide authority and discretion as possible. If the board, after investigating the particular residential training centres of a local authority, are satisfied that they ought to be treated as training courses, the board will be able under the Bill so to treat them, after having come to the necessary financial arrangement with the local authority. We are particularly anxious not to limit the powers of the board in any way. That is why we have inserted no definition of training courses in the Bill. After that explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.22 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIS: Will the Minister be good enough to look at the words at the top of page 48?
'Medical needs' means the need of medical or surgical assistance, including any need of drugs, medical or surgical appliances or of nursing or similar services:
Apart from "nursing or similar services" all these provisions come under the National Health Insurance Act in respect of all persons who are insured under that Act. I am wondering whether there is any connection at all between these words and the same provisions in the National Health Insurance scheme.

Mr. HUDSON: No, not as far as I know, but it is not a point that has been brought to my attention. I shall certainly look into it and communicate with the hon. Gentleman before the Report stage.

CLAUSE 54.—(Application of Part II to Scotland.)

10.25 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 49, line 3, to leave out from "Minister" to the end of the Subsection.
It is intended that on the Report stage, Clause 60 dealing with rules regarding superannuation and pension of certain officers should be amended so as to provide that the consultation with the Treasury at present confined to the Minister of Health, shall be carried on concurrently by that Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. This alteration in the Scottish Clause is accordingly necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 49, line 15, after the word "May," to insert:
or, in the case of a council whose financial year ends on a day other than the fifteenth day of May, to that other day.
This Amendment is to provide for the fact that although the ordinary date for the end of the Scottish local authorities' financial year is 15th May there are three authorities whose financial years end on other dates.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 49, line 17, leave out "(ii)" and insert "(iii)."

In page 49, line 17, after "(2)" insert "and in Sub-section (4)".—(Mr. Skelton.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.29 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: This is a very important Clause dealing with Scotland, and it is of great interest to note that no Scottish Member of the Socialist Party has seen fit to take any part in the discussion of the Amendments to it. It seems rather a pity that the Scottish section of the Opposition have not had a look-in on this very important part of the Bill, and it is notable that both Oppositions seem to have agreed, for once, to be silent.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 56.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[10.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hanbury, Cecil


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Canant, R. J. E.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cook, Thomas A.
Harbord, Arthur


Albery, Irving James
Cooke, Douglas
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Copeland, Ida
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Allen, William (stoke-on-Trent)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Apsley, Lord
Croom, Johnson, R. P.
Hornby, Frank


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cross, R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dickle, John P.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Blinded, James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine-Bolst, capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Lamb, sir Joseph Quinton


Bralthwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Law, Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leckie, J. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Liddall, Walter S.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslis
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)


Burnett, John George
Goff, Sir Park
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goldie, Noel B.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (firmly)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Mabane, William


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Greene, William P. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Christie, James Archibald
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rankin, Robert
Strauss, Edward A.


Martin, Thomas B.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Milne, Charles
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mitchell, Harold p. (Brtf'd & Chlsw'k)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Templeton, William P.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tree, Ronald


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison, William Shephard
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Salt, Edward W.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Munro, Patrick
Scone, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nunn, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wells, Sydney Richard


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Pearson, William G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Petherick, M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wise, Alfred R.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Womersley, Walter James


Pybus, Sir Percy John
Spens, William Patrick



Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stevenson, James
Lord Erskine and Commander Southby.


Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Storey, Samuel



Ramabotham, Herwald
Stourton, Hon. John J.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Hall, Georgs H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKeag, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

CLAUSE 55.—(Power to make reciprocal arrangements relating to Northern Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.37 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We ought not to pass this Clause without an explanation from the Minister. I always had the impression that there was already in Northern Ireland a scheme of unemployment insurance, and I was therefore surprised to read this Clause. If there is no such scheme, I am sure the Government of this country have some hope that a scheme corresponding to ours is likely to emerge. If that be the case, we are entitled to have some information on this
point. I do not want to touch upon what is a very delicate subject, but Ireland is divided into two parts, and I am wondering whether the same reciprocal arrangements as are made under the National Health Insurance scheme between our own Ministry of Health and the Irish Free State Health Department cannot be extended in the case of Unemployment Insurance both to Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: Ever since the establishment of a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland that Parliament has been responsible for its own unemployment insurance legislation, and it has
been the custom there to pass legislation dealing with unemployment insurance corresponding with similar legislation passed in this House. This Clause has been inserted in order that when the Northern Parliament passes, as we contemplate it will, legislation substantially similar to Part II of this Bill, it will be possible for the two Governments to enter into reciprocal arrangements so that assistance in each country shall be available for persons coming from either. It is in order to enable such reciprocal arrangements to be entered into after the passage of substantially similar legislation in Northern Ireland, that this Clause is required. Such an arrangement will only be entered into with the consent of the Treasury and subject to rules which will have to be laid before this House.

Mr. DAVIES: Northern Ireland is farther removed from the shores of this country than the Isle of Man. The people who live in the Isle of Man are men and women like the people who live in Northern Ireland—

The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is now suggesting seems to be a matter for a new Clause.

Mr. DAVIES: May I ask this question? How comes it that under this Bill Northern Ireland secures preferential treatment as against not only the Irish Free State but the people of the Isle of Man as well?

Mr. HUDSON: In the case of the Irish Free State reciprocal arrangements used to exist, but were broken off some time ago by the Government of the Irish Free State. As regards the Isle of Man, I understand that they have been attempting for some time to pass an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and, when they do so, no doubt they will approach us and we shall be glad to make reciprocal arrangements, if the provisions of their Measure correspond with our own.

Clause 56 (Extent and citation of Part II) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 57.—(Transitory provisions as to benefit.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 56.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Albery, Irving James
Christie, James Archibald
Goff, Sir Park


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Goldie, Noel B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gower, Sir Robert


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graves, Marjorie


Aske, Sir Robert William
Conant, R. J. E.
Greene, William P. C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cooke, Douglas
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Copeland, Ida
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanbury, Cecil


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, Arthur


Blinded, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Boulton, W. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dickle, John p.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duggan, Hubert John
Hornby, Frank


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Browne, Captain A. C.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hcwitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Burnett, John George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fleming Edward Lascelles
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Castlereagh, viscount
Fremantie, Sir Francis
Law. Sir Alfred


Leckie, J. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pearson, William G.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Penny, Sir George
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Liddall, Walter S.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spens, William Patrick


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Stevenson, James


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Storey, Samuel


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Strauss, Edward A.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Radford, E. A.
Strickland, Captain w. F.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mabane, William
Ramsbotham, Harwald
Sutcliffe, Harold


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rankin, Robert
Tate, Mavis Constance


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Templeton, William P.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Remer, John R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tree, Ronald


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Martin, Thomas B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Milne, Charles
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moreing, Adrian C
Salt, Edward W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgcour


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Scone, Lord
Whlteslde, Borras Noel H.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Selley, Harry R.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wise, Alfred R.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Womersley, Walter James


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-ln-F.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nunn, William
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord Erskine.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Somervell, Sir Donald



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling,Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
John, William
Sinclair, Mai. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Temporary continuation of transitional payments.)

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 52, line 36, at the end, to add:
(4) For the purposes of this section, an interim determination made in accordance with regulations made under Article 3 of the said Order shall be deemed to be a determination made under paragraph (3) of Article 1 of that Order.
Under the Clause as it stands, any determinations of transitional payments
which are current when the Act comes into force will continue until the expiry of the determinations, in order to give the board time to deal with what would otherwise have been hardships. This is to make sure that interim transitional payments also are continued.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.52 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I intervene to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will give us an explanation of what is actually meant by Sub-section (3)? That Subsection says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an insurance officer shall not himself disallow any application for transtional payments on the ground that the applicant is not normally employed in…
We want to know whether there is anything in the Sub-section that will stiffen up the provisions that we have already passed in the preceding Clauses. It refers only to the insurance officer, and debars him from doing certain things. We were wondering what relation these provisions had to the others.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Sub-section deals with "not normally insurable." May I take it that the definition of "not normally insurable" is the definition here; that is, that it is a rough-and-ready definition for the Umpire that after a certain period of time a certain person shall be presumed to have become not normally insurable? In the case of people over 55 years of age the period is five years; for people younger, it is correspondingly less. Am I to take it that this will continue the present system, or will the system be made better so that all types get better treatment?

Mr. HUDSON: This is not a definition, but a condition which must be fulfilled for the receipt of transitional payment. Transitional payment will cease to exist when Part I comes into operation, and this provision is inserted in order to make it quite clear that the insurance officer, who is given certain power under an earlier Clause of Part I to disallow on his own account, shall not be able to disallow under "not normally." It is a safeguard put in to make the position quite clear.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understood from earlier speeches of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that everyone would come under Part II unless definitely ruled out. It seems to me that, if the "not normally" condition is to continue, the burden on the local authorities will continue as before. The great bulk of the able-bodied poor have been refused benefit under the "not normally" condition, apart from those
who never came within insurance and may be brought in now. The present positior is that the Umpire has ruled that, in the case of a person over the age of 55, five years' constant unemployment is sufficient, and the man has to rebut the presumption that is raised. I think it is roughly speaking three years below the age of 55. Consequently, the position of the local authorities is going to be the same. I thought that, when the Bill was introduced, the "not normally" condition was abolished, and I was informed that it was abolished. How is it now that it comes in here? How can the insurance officer have the right to refuse benefit if the "not normally" condition is abolished? The Parliamentary Secretary definitely stated at that Box, and he was right, that the "not normally" condition has gone. How, then, does it come in here? It seems to me rather curious, having said that it is abolished, now to say that an insurance officer shall not have the right to disallow benefit. How can he have a right if it does not exist?

10.57 p.m.

The Minister of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Perhaps I can explain the matter. The effect of the Subsection to which the hon. Member refers is to prevent an insurance officer during the transitory period from himself disallowing benefit under the "not normally" condition, and requires him to refer the matter to the court of referees. As the hon. Member says, the "not normally" condition will disappear on the second appointed day, and the Subsection is necessary because of the extension of the powers of the insurance officer to disallow claims under Clause 12 of the Bill. This is really a transitional provision until Part II come into operation.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: If I may add a word, this will only have effect during the short period between the times when the Bill comes into operation and transitional payments cease. Until the board take over, there will be a period when the insurance officer will have this duty.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it contemplated that anybody's benefit will be disallowed during that period on the ground that he
is not normally in insurable employment? It seems to me to be silly.

Clause 59 (Prevention of anomalies during transitory period) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 60.—(Transitory provisions as to allowances.)

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 53, line 30, after "applies," to insert:
and to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit.
This Amendment is merely to ensure that local authorities during the transitional period shall be entitled to supplement the benefit of persons in receipt of benefit, and to make it perfectly certain that their existing rights will remain.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to

dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment made: In page 53, line 32, leave out "to whom allowances had been granted," and insert:
whose applications for allowances can under this section be considered before the second appointed day; and the provisions of the said Schedule requiring the Unemployment Assistance Board to pay the cost of outdoor relief given to persons to whom Part II of this Act applies pending the decision that they are such persons and of relief given to such persons in cases of sudden or urgent necessity, shall apply only as respects relief given after the first appointed day to persons whose applications for allowances can be so considered as aforesaid.

Clause 61 (Transitory provisions as to moneys provided by Parliament) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 62.—(Definition and appointed day.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 49.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christie, James Archibald
Goff, Sir Park


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Goldie, Noel B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Albery, Irving James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graves, Marjorle


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Conant, R. J. E.
Greene, William P. C.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, Douglas
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooper, A. Duff
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Actor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Copeland, Ida
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cranborne, Viscount
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooks, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Harbord, Arthur


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cross, R. H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Blindell, James
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dickle, John P.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hornby, Frank


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duggan, Hubert John
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Broadbent, Colonel John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Burnett, John George
Everard, w. Lindsay
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fleming Edward Lascelies
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Law, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gilford
Leckle, J. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Llewellin, Major John J.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Petherick, M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spens, William Patrick


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Radford, E. A.
Stevenson, James


Mabane, William
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Storey, Samuel


MacAndrew. Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Strauss, Edward A.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rankin, Robert
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mac Donald, Malcolm (Basset law)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Remer, John R.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Templeton, William P.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thompson, Sir Luke


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tree, Ronald


Milne, Charles
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison, William Shephard
Scone, Lord
Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour


Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Selley, Harry R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nunn, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wise, Alfred R.


Pearson, William G
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)



Penny, Sir George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Mr. Womersley and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKeag, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THF NOES




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Clause 63 (Short title and repeals) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to male his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That Mrs. Runge be added to the Select Committee on Public Petitions."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elec-
tricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Gwyrfai and Ogwen, in the county of Caernarvon, which was presented on the 12th day of March, 1934, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Orders of the Day — HOME SETTLEMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (GROUNDSMEN).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In accordance with notice already given, I beg to draw the attention of the House to the subject of the groundsmen employed in urban areas being debarred from the benefit of unemployment insurance. The broad facts of the position are very simple. In 1921 Mr. Justice Roche, in the High Court, decided that groundsmen were agricultural workers, and although that decision was based on a case dealing with groundsmen employed in rural areas that decision has been taken by the Minister of Health to apply to groundsmen wherever and however they are employed. As the House knows, agricultural workers are exempt from insurance against unemployment. In consequence of this decision groundsmen who are engaged in urban districts if they fall out of work in an area in which many people are also out of work have no recourse against hardship and indeed starvation except the sole recourse of appeal to Poor Law relief.
A case in my constituency is typical. For six and a half years a man named Clark was engaged as groundsman in the Manchester High School for Girls. During a portion of the first year he paid unemployment insurance. Whether he was in fault or not I do not know, or whether he got the payments repaid to him, but two years ago he lost his employment. He has a wife and five children, four of them dependent children. He receives a maximum sum of 30s. a week, 15s. in cash and 15s. in kind, and it does not require any words of mine to impress the fact that to maintain a family on 30s. a week for a period of two years involves hardship which no words can express. One is entitled to ask from the Minister of Labour why these individuals are debarred from what is in fact the privilege of being able to be in an insured trade. This individual has a good industrial record.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that this matter has been decided by a decision of the High Court. In that case the Minister has no responsibility.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes. There is a decision by the High Court judge precisely covering this point.

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, the Minister has no responsibility.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Clause 2 of the Unemployment Bill now before the House that was not debated, is intended, in the opinion of many people, to cover—and in fact does cover—this particular point.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of legislation which is now before the House and cannot be debated now. The hon. Member cannot debate legislation before the House on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It is to obtain from the Minister a specific assurance on that point.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot raise a matter which involves legislation on the Adjournment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I was not arguing that the Minister should pledge himself to legislation but that he should give some specific guidance as to the position of groundsmen in urban districts. I have asked questions in the House and there is a great deal of dubiety as to the situation, and because of this doubt I am raising the matter on the Adjournment to-night with a view to getting a considered reply from the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. The Motion for the Adjournment is to consider questions for which the Minister himself is responsible.

Mr. LAWSON: I think this matter was considered on Clause 2 of the Bill, when the Minister said he was going to give it serious consideration with a view to issuing specal regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I submit that the decision in the High Court may not cover every case, and for this reason: You may have a groundsman working under certain conditions whose claim to be an insured worker is disallowed, and another groundsman working under other conditions who is brought within the law. There are constantly differences in the matter. What the hon. Member has asked is that in view of these differences the
Minister should reconsider some method by which he can clearly define these people.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would need legislation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No. I do not think so. I do not think it requires legislation. Under the Acts the Minister has power I think, in certain cases, what I might call border-line cases. Under the Bill now being discussed it is possible for the Minister, if he felt that this case or similar cases really came within this insurance, to reconsider the matter. I submit that this man's case is not really covered by the judges' decision.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is one of the cases in which I should like to have the Minister's view before we proceed further.

11.21 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I confess I am at a loss to understand why this case has been raised to-night because I have dealt as fully with it in correspondence and in the House as it has been in my power to deal with it. With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, I made it quite clear that this is not a question whether a particular man is entitled to benefit or whether he is not. The question is whether the occupation in which he is engaged is an occupation which is insurable under the existing law. That is the point. Whether a particular occupation like that of a groundsman is or is not agricultural or horticultural and
insurable is a question which, under the existing law, I may refer to a High Court Judge for decision. In this case the High Court Judge has laid it down quite definitely that the occupation is not an insurable occupation. Therefore, it does not come under the present law. That is quite clear. The second point is whether this is a case which will come under Clause 2 of the Unemployment Bill. Let me read part of Clause 2. It says:
Where it appears to the Minister that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, any-class of persons employed in an excepted employment are so similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, a class of persons employed in an insurable employment as to result in anomalies in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Minister may, by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury,…
make regulations which will do away with these anomalies. There are in the report of the Royal Commission—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with legislation which is before the House. That is not a proper subject to raise on the Motion for Adjournment and I am afraid I cannot allow it to be discussed.

Sir H. BETTERTON: If I may respectfully say so, that was entirely my view when the case was raised. I, of course, accept your Ruling, Sir, at once.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.